Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTERTWO Proposed Action andAiternatiiues 1 <br />presently under development consideration due to the presence of halite, an impurity that <br /> <br />adversely impacts soda ash and sodium bicazbonate processing. The grade o:Fnahcolite ' <br />present in this azea is also lower than in the area currently proposed for development. <br />Depending on halite concentrations, economics, and the degree to which the :ialite adversely <br /> <br />affects processing, nahcolite resources found in this azea could be developed in the future. ' <br />• A pazcel that is not currently proposed for development but could be mined in the future <br />exists in the southwest comer of the Piceance Site, southeast of the Yellow Creek Jeep Trail , <br />in Section 19. <br />• Nahcolite resources located along the eastern edge of the Piceance Site in the lower drainages <br />could be developed in the future due to the presence of favorable terrain and relatively good <br />nahcolite grade and purity. This area is not currently proposed for developm~°nt because of <br />its distance from the proposed initial processing plant on top of the ridge. It is possible that <br />future development of nahcolite in this portion of the Piceance Site would require installation <br />of pumping stations to lift well solutions from these low azeas to the initial processing plant. <br />Development of the azeas between the proposed mining panels is not foreseeable at this time , <br />primarily due to economic considerations. These azeas aze not attractive for futw-e development <br />due to the cost of developing roads, solution pipelines, and other infrastructure to obtain the ' <br />limited quantity of nahcolite that could be extracted from these narrow comdors. In addition, the <br />azeas between the proposed mining panels are also unattractive from a future development <br />standpoint due to the steepness of the terrain in the drainages and also due to issues associated ' <br />with drainage control and potential for accelerated erosion (Figure 2-12). These .areas also may <br />provide some benefit to underground stability. <br />Should American Soda choose to pursue further mining at the Piceance Site beyond that ' <br />described for the Proposed Action, that proposal would be subject to future permitting <br />requirements and environmental review as required by NEPA. Thus, no quantitative analysis of ' <br />potential environmental impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable actions i:; presented in <br />Chapter 4 at this time. <br /> <br />2.3 ACCELERATED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE <br />Project activities under the Accelerated Development Alternative would be essentially the same ' <br />as those described for the Proposed Action (Section 2.2). However, this alternative would <br />feature accelerated commercial-scale solution mine development, with nahcolite processing <br />increased to approximately 4 million tpy, which is neazly triple the 1.4 million tpy planned for <br />the Proposed Action. In brief, this altemative would feature acceleration of the number of <br />solution mining wells that would be drilled, completed, and operated each yeaz. While <br />development and production would be accelerated, the total number of wells and the total area to , <br />be developed by solution mining would remain the same as under the Proposed P~ction. Given <br />the accelerated rate of nahcolite extraction ,the estimated life of the solution mining operation <br />would be shortened to approximately ] 0 yeazs, compazed with 30 yeazs under the Proposed ' <br />Action. The following sections describe orily those project components that differ from those <br />described for the Proposed Action. <br />2-30 ' <br />