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 />Alternatives <br />Table 2-1 <br />ALTERNATIVES -SECONDARY SCREENING <br />Alternative Issues/Impacts Action <br />Trucking coal over a • Noise -Trucks would be hauling 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. No Further Analysis <br />designated private . Eriogonum contortum -Haul road maybe designed to avoid <br />haul road some areas but would be substantially wider than railroad. <br /> • Visuals -Haul road would be substantially wider and require a <br /> bridge over SH 139. Loadout facilities would be located within <br /> 1 mile of Highline Lake and SH 139. Loadout facilities would <br /> be within 1 mile of Mack Lake and Highline Lake and be very <br /> visible to recreationists. <br /> • Costs -Estimated five 240-ton trucks at $3 million/trnck would <br /> be required. Rail construction costs reduced by $4 million/mile. <br /> Trncks consume about 33 gallons of diesel fuel per hour and <br /> require substantial regular maintenance. Large trnck- <br /> maintenance facility would be required. Long-term maintenance <br /> costs greater than proposed action. <br /> • Wetlands - No reduction in impacts, as rail spur would still be <br /> required. <br /> • Air Quality -Haul road would not be paved and would require <br /> substantial watering to reduce dust. Haul trucks diesel engine <br /> emissions would add to train engine emissions. <br /> • Socioeconomics - No change to rail operations on private land <br /> and crossing CR M 8 and CR 10. Loadout operations would be <br /> approximately 5 miles closer to residences. Additional truck <br /> maintenance jobs would be created. <br /> • Wildlife -For safety concerns, haul road maybe fenced, <br /> limiting wildlife movement. <br /> • Recreation -Trnck and loadout noise would be audible at <br /> portions of the recreation facilities. <br />Conveyor system • Noise -Conveyor would operate 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. No Further Analysis <br />from mine to Mack The noise level, particularly near the loadout facility, could be <br />or other location substantial. <br /> • Eriogonum contortum -Conveyor footprint would be narrower <br /> than the railroad, but would still require construction of an <br /> access road along its entire length. Cuts and fills would be less <br /> than either rail or haul road. <br /> • Visuals -Conveyor would cross over SH 139. Loadout would <br /> be within 1 mile of Highline Lake and SH 139. Loadout and <br /> conveyor would be visible from Mack Mesa Lake and Highline <br /> Lake and would be visible to recreationists. <br /> • Costs -Conveyor would be cheaper to build and operate than <br /> haul trucks. Long-term maintenance would be greater than <br /> proposed action. Additional power requirements would require <br /> review/assessment of electrical supply capacity. <br />2-3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.