My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE134363
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE134363
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:35:04 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 2:11:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2008086
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
12/7/2006
Doc Name
Public Scoping Report for the Environmental Impact Statement
From
BLM
To
DRMS
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.
/
177
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
' SECTIONTHREE Scoping Results <br />' • The current proposal for construction of the new transportation and mine facilities would <br />alter existing drainage patterns, causing changes in the amount and distribution of water <br />that wildlife is depending upon. <br />' Some questions that arose and that will be addressed: <br />• What about the coal dust in the azea of the Mack Wash and its tributaries? How will this <br />' be addressed in the EIS? <br />3.3.3 Air Quality <br />' • Air emissions from rail spur and trains will be degrading to life quality. <br />• There is concern that the trains and any roads and/or activity along side of the tracks will <br />' create excessive amounts of dust. <br />• The EIS should identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation for air quality impacts, even if <br />' they are outside the jurisdiction of BLM. The probability of the mitigation measures <br />being implemented should be also discussed. <br />• The EIS should indicate a path to assure compliance with National Ambient Air Quality <br />Standazds. It should outline both regulatory and non-regulatory processes that aze in <br />place to address air quality concerns in the project area, as well as include all mitigation. <br />' Some questions that arose and that will be addressed: <br />• What is the anticipated pollution output of motive power/unit? <br />• What will be the ambient air quality impacts of this increased generation, including that <br />of increased mercury emissions? <br />3.4 VIEWSHED /VISUAL IMPACTS <br />• Concerns were expressed about the power lines proposed on Scenic Byway, State <br />' Highway 139. This is an excellent road for viewing the natural beauty surrounding the <br />area of Grand Junction. It would seem possible to bury the lines with minimal impacts to <br />the land and no impacts to visual qualities of the landscape. <br />' • The valley east of 10 Road and North of Mack Mesa is, at this point, beautiful, quiet, and <br />relatively undeveloped. The proposed spur will result in a cut and rails, which will be <br />' visible for the entire distance from where the spur will cross the Highline Canal to where <br />it will cross 10 Road. <br />• The BLM and CAM should do all they can to minimize visual impacts to those who live <br />' neaz the area where the rail spur will be located. <br />• Some people may have concems over the possible visual impacts that the Red Cliff Mine <br />' could have on the azea. <br />• The BLM, as the permitting authority, should assess possible ways to take into account <br />standazd cost effective visual mitigations while also reminding the people who aze <br />opposed to the project that the visual impacts are going to be minimal. <br />3-11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.