2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 (46)

Home Browse Search

CHAPTERTWO Alternatives Noiseless Grade Crossing Option Another alternative for the at-grade crossings of CR 10 and CR M8 has been developed that would entail the construction and approval of noiseless crossings. This requires special construction and operation that allows the trains to cross the roads without sounding their horns. 2.3.4 Loadout Facility Location The proposed action, which includes a railroad from the Red Cliff Mine area to Mack, proposes that the Loadout area will be at the mine site. This would mean that the coal stockpile, stacking tubes, and other associated facilities would be located at some distance from the view of the general public, and not near busy travel routes (US 6 and I-70) or residences and businesses. Alternative Loadout Locations Any system other than transporting the coal by rail would require a coal stockpile and stacking tubes (or coal storage silos), and Loadout facilities located closer to the UPRR, where it would be more visible to the general public. This facility could either be constructed immediately adjacent to the UPRR, or north of the Highline Canal on BLM-managed land. If located at the UPRR, a unit train Loadout and rail siding would need to be constructed adjacent to the existing track. Basically this would consist of a 2-mile-long rail spur, coal storage silos, and Loadout structures including a conveyor system (Figure 2-5, Proposed Loadout Facility). Clean coal would be delivered to this point by truck or conveyor and loaded into the unit train as it moves along the siding. This facility would need to be located between Mack and Fruita. A Loadout facility north of the Highline Canal and west of SH 139 would still require a rail spur connection to the UPRR through private lands and crossing county roads. It could be configured similarly to the proposed action, with a loop track and related facilities. Coal would be transported to either facility on a 24-hour/day, 7-day/week schedule. Either Loadout option would essentially split the cleaning, handling, and loading into two locations. Additional equipment and facilities would need to be purchased and maintained. Additional water and power lines would need to be constructed and new access provided north of the Highline Canal. For operational considerations (cost and efficiency), it would be best to have operations consolidated in a single location. One other coal loading location was considered. At one time there was a minimal coal loading facility at Loma consisting of little more than a place to stockpile coal. Using afront-end loader, the coal was loaded onto rail cars. There are no longer any facilities at Loma; this location would not be suitable for the type of the Loadout facilities necessary to move 8,000,000 tons of coal per year. 2-22