Laserfiche WebLink
Chapter 1 <br />1.8 REASONABLY <br />FORESEEABLE MINING <br />PLAN AND FORESEEABLE <br />SURFACE USE <br />To analyze potential surface impacts due to <br />underground mine subsidence, this DEIS assumes a <br />RFMP for this leasing decision. In order to <br />effectively analyze potential post-lease activities on <br />the land surface, the DEIS also assumes a scenario <br />of potential surface use. It must be noted, however, <br />that decisions pertaining to surface use and <br />disturbance, with the exception of subsidence <br />impacts, are not made at the leasing stage. Rather, <br />the decisions related to post-lease surface activities <br />are made when and if site-specific surface use <br />proposals are made, and are evaluated under NEPA <br />based on their own merits. <br />1.8.1 Reasonably Foreseeable Mine <br />Plan <br />The Dry Fork LBA contains an estimated 17 <br />million tons of Federal coal reserves in the B and E <br />Seams (see also Section 3.2 -Topography, Soils <br />and Geology). For this analysis, it is assumed that <br />the coal would be recovered using the longwall <br />method of underground coal mining. The tract is <br />bounded on the north and west by currently leased <br />Federal coal, on the east by unmineable (thin) coal, <br />and on the south by inferred mineable coal <br />(unleased) (BLM 2004). Therefore, it is assumed <br />that access to the coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA <br />tract would most easily be achieved from the <br />existing underground workings at the West Elk <br />Mine with existing surface facilities. <br />Understanding that Federal coal is leased through a <br />competitive bid process, the analysis assumes that <br />another company, other than ArkLand/MCC, may <br />be the successful bidder at the lease sale. If there <br />were a successful bidder other than ArkLand/MCC, <br />the tract could potentially be subleased back to <br />MCC (because the successful bidder would not <br />have the advantage of existing coal handling <br />facilities or control of adjacent coal reserves, as <br />does MCC). Subleasing would be a high-risk <br />business proposition for an outside bidder because <br />MCC may refuse any such sublease agreement. <br />The coal does not outcrop on the Dry Fork LBA <br />Purpose and Need <br />tract, therefore no portals could be located and there <br />may not be a reasonable shaft location. <br />Production at the West Elk Mine is limited to 8.2 <br />million tons per year based on current air quality <br />and mining operation plans and corresponding <br />permits. Current production ranges between 6.5 and <br />7 million tans per year using the longwall mining <br />method, and is capable of peaking at a rate of 7.5 <br />million tons per year. Assuming that the coal in the <br />Dry Fork LBA tract would be mined from the West <br />Elk Mine, the reserves would be extracted with new <br />longwall and coal handling systems. Annual <br />production will depend on several factors, including <br />rail transportation, which ultimately limits <br />production from the North Fork Valley. It is <br />assumed that the coal would be transported to <br />market using the existing coal handling facilities <br />and existing spur rail line. <br />The RFMP for the Dry Fork tract assumes the coal <br />in the E Seam would be extracted from longwall <br />panels trending northwest-southeast. These <br />longwall panels and corresponding development <br />mining are planned to occur on an adjacent lease <br />already held by MCC. The foreseeable mine <br />operations plan in the Dry Fork LBA tract is an <br />eastward extension of the longwall panels planned <br />in the existing lease to the west (see also Section <br />3.1.3.1 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable <br />Actions). The mining would "retreat" [o the main <br />entries of the mine. Continuous miner development <br />would be used to drive development entries for the <br />longwall panels, with the primary coal production <br />being achieved using the longwall method and <br />equipment. <br />The E Seam coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA <br />tract represent about 30 months of additional coal <br />reserves based on the rate of mining currently <br />employed at the West Elk Mine (BLM 2004). The <br />E Seam coal in the Dry Fork LBA tract would be <br />mined from about 2008 to 2015. Some variations to <br />these timeframes may occur based on permitting, <br />unforeseen mining or geologic circumstances, coal <br />contract variability, etc. <br />ArkLand's application for the Dry Fork LBA tract <br />did not include foreseeable mining in the B Seam. <br />However, the BLM has documented possible <br />recoverable reserves in the B Seam. The coal lease, <br />if it is issued, will encompass all coal within the <br />Dry Fork Lease-By-Application DEIS 1-7 <br />