My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL36281
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL36281
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:56:54 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:41:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
8/18/1998
Doc Name
RESPONSED TO BLM ISSUES WITH THE COMMERCIAL MINE PLAN
From
AMERICAN SODA
To
BLM WITH COPY PROVIDED TO DMG
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.
/
45
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
Transportation <br />101. What are the accident rates for the roads involved? Are there any high accident areas? <br />This issue was not evaluated in the Commercial Mine Plan, but it should be covered <br />in the EIS. The counties will likely have accident statistics and high-accident <br />location information. This subject was never raised as a concern by the counties <br />when we discussed the project with them. <br />An important thing to consider is the use of the rail spur for product hauling from <br />the Parachute Site. This rail spur includes an at-grade crossing of County Road 215. <br />Although the rail spur has not been active since 1991, there may be historical <br />accident data that may include train-automobile collisions. Again, this was not <br />raised as a concern, so there may not have been any such accidents when the spur <br />was active in the 1980s. <br />Contacts: Rio Blanco County Public Works/Road and Bridge Department (970) 878- <br />5601; Garfield County Road and Bridge Department (970) 945-6111; Sandra Sellers, <br />CDOT Motor Vehicle Traffic Records (303) 757-9488. <br />102. Section 2.1.2.1 - It states that a few service roads aze already in place. How many new <br />service roads will be constructed? Figure 2-3 does not seem to clarify what is in place and what <br />is proposed. Please provide a legend that would help to clarify this. Are the existing roads <br />currently asphalt or gravel? What is the current use of the existing roads and by whom? <br />Figure 2-1 depicts Piceance Site roads that are in place and those proposed (see lower <br />left hand corner for legend). All existing roads are dirtlgravel at present. The main <br />access road from County Road 5 (Piceance Creek Road) via Horse Draw up to the <br />Piceance Site processing plant will be paved with asphalt prior to construction of the <br />commercial project. Refer to responses to comments 12, 13, and 14, above, for <br />additional information on future access road development. <br />Current use of these roads at the Piceance Site consists of movement of drill rigs and <br />water trucks and worker commute trips to and from American Soda Test Mine <br />facilities. C:~rrent traffic volumes include a limited number of trips per day to <br />individual well locations (10 or less) when they are being developed and virh~al[y <br />no trips after a well is completed. A tenant rancher uses the Marathon and Horse <br />Draw roads to access Marathon Oil properhj from Piceance Creek Road. His trips <br />amount to a few per day. During Minting season, hunters will drive along the <br />Yellow Creek Jeep Trail near the proposed Piceance Site processing plant site and <br />possibly along well access roads. Aside from seasonal hunting traffic, there is little <br />or no non-mine-related traffic around the Piceance Site. <br />38 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.