My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 (46)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Application Correspondence
>
Coal
>
C2008086
>
2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 (46)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:23:10 PM
Creation date
3/6/2008 9:58:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C2008086
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
2/22/2008
Doc Name
PDEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives
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.
/
62
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
CHAPTERTWO <br />Table 2-2 <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED SUMMARY <br />Proposed Action Alternatives Considered Reasonableness and Practicability of Altern; <br />Project Component Coal Leasing <br />Approximatcl~ 2 ~.ooo acres BLM has considered t~~o additional leasing The proposed action maximii.cs the reco~crablc <br />~~ith the life of the mine altcrnati~cs described in the subsequent text. Crom the Rcd Cliff Minc portals. <br />estimated at ~U scars. <br /> Lease Alternative 1-This alternative is This alternative ~~ould result in potentially <br /> approximately 21,000 acres. The overburden depth recoverable coal resources between 1,500 feet a <br /> cutoff is only 1,500 feet. The deeper coal (between 2,000 feet deep not being mined. <br /> 1,500 feet and 2,000 feet) would potentially be <br /> by-passed. <br /> Lease Alternative 2 -This alternative is The potential recoverable reserves for this area ~ <br /> approximately 32,000 acres, with expansion to the significantly exceed the tonnage planned for the <br /> east. The overburden depth cutoff is 2,000 feet deep. Cliff Mine. Additionally, the more distant reser <br /> would likely be produced from different portals <br /> the distance of the reserves from the planned po <br />Project Component Location of Mine Portal <br />Constrnel nllnC p0I'la~S In ThIS ~oeation ~~aS SC~CCICCt baSCCt On ~OCaIIOn an <br />Section ~. TSS.. RIO2~V. quality of coal outcrop. access issues. and the n <br /> be ~~ithin CAM~s existing coal leases. <br /> Construct mine portal at a location further to the east. Constructing the mine portal at another location <br /> would have a greater impact on recreation and <br /> residences and would require a longer haul to th <br /> UPRR. The portal would not be located in lease <br /> currently held by CAM. It would not improve u <br /> the proposed action. <br />Notes: <br />BLM = Bureau of Land Management <br />CAM = CAM-Colorado, LLC <br />CDOT = Colorado Department of Transportation <br />CR # = County Road # <br />GVP = Grand Valley Power <br />NAID = not analyzed in detail <br />RR = Railroad <br />SH # = State Highway # <br />T#,R# = Township #, Range # <br />tpy = tons per year <br />UPRR = Union Pacific Railroad <br />2-21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.