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
<br />Emereenc~ervices, School Buses: <br />The proposed crossings at 10 Road and at R Road will restrict vehicular access by <br />emergency vehicles and school busses. Due to the proposed length of the trains, it is <br />likely that 10 Road and R Road will be blocked at the same time. If 10 Road is blocked <br />and if R Road is also blocked, the only way to access the upper 10 Road azea is to return <br />to M.8 Road (the old 6 & 50 alignment) and proceed west to 8 Road, then north to R <br />Road, then east to 9 Road, then north to T Road and east to 10 Road. In time-critical <br />situations, this will unacceptably increase the response time of emergency vehicles to <br />upper 10 Road. If, under extraordinary circumstances, M.8 Road is also blocked, either <br />by an additional CAM train or some other problem, there will be no access to upper 10 <br />Road available. <br />Mitigation Measures: <br />Consideration should be given to measures which will reduce or eliminate noise, view, <br />and dust problems and emergency response issues. Requiring screening the track on the <br />north side using foliage and/or berms or lowering the track into the ground may reduce <br />the view and noise problems. Requiring fugitive dust control measures will assist to <br />minimize dust problems. Constructing grade separated crossings at 10 Road, R Road, <br />and M.8 Road will eliminate the noise associated with the crossing signals and the <br />approach horns of the trains and will eliminate emergency vehicle response problems by <br />keeping the roads open. <br />We expect that the CAM response to these suggested measures will be that the expense is <br />not justified by the limited number of trains (we understand that CAM proposes 1.9 trains <br />per day). We also understand that CAM has requested permits to explore for additional <br />coal reserves in the azea of the mine. Our expectation is that the number of trains will <br />increase over time and that the impacts will increase with them. It will be difficult and <br />more expensive to retrofit the crossings later. CAM is spending a considerable amount of <br />money on this railroad spur and the spur should be initially constmcted to minimize all <br />irnpacts. Consideration of mitigation measures should encompass not only the immediate <br />proposal, but reasonably foreseeable expansions as well. <br />Sincere ~~ ~ <br />Maurice Lyle Dechant <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.