Laserfiche WebLink
<br />)J023S3 <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />SRMA would terminate at the same location. The SRMA continues below State Bridge and <br />management would remain unchanged for that portion managed by the Glenwood Springs Field <br />Office. <br /> <br />#2. Land use priorities would be changed for some public lands in the proposed SRMA. Of the <br />12,237 acres of public land in the SRMA, approximately 8,787 acres would be identified as a <br />recreation priority, 2,542 acres as a wildlife priority, 833 acres as a soil priority, 35 acres as a <br />protected area priority, and 40 acres with no priority. In addition, 20.8 miles of the Colorado <br />River and associated tributaries would be designated as a water priority. The priorities for some <br />lands would differ from the land use priority established in the original 1984 RMP, whereas <br />some of the land use priorities would remain the same. The attached maps reflect the existing <br />land use priorities in the proposed SRMA and the land use priorities associated with the proposed <br />action. <br /> <br />The proposed action would identify approximately 72% of th~ SRMA as a recreation land use <br />priority, approximately 21 % as a wildlife land use priority, and approximately 7% as a soils land <br />use priority. The most important wildlife habitat in the proposed SRMA would retain the <br />wildlife land use priority established in the 1984 RMP. Areas within the proposed SRMA with <br />soil erosion problems would retain the soils land use priority established in the 1984 RMP. <br />Other small parcels identified with no priority or with a protected priority would retain these <br />classifications established in the 1984 RMP. The Colorado River and major uibutaries within <br />the proposed SRMA would be identified with a water priority. <br /> <br />The management emphasis associated with each land use priority is explained in the 1984 RMP. <br />This includes identified compatible and excluded uses. The specific definitions for land use <br />priorities identified in the RMP would not be affected by this proposed amendment. <br /> <br />#3. Because of the recreation emphasis of the SRMA, the amendment would also address <br />enlarging the existing NSO area for oil and gas development within the river corridor. to that of <br />the new SRMA boundary. This would result in 12,237 acres of NSO within the SRMA. There <br />are currently 4,870 acres of NSO within the boundary of the existing SRMA boundary. <br />Consequently, this action would increase the acreage of NSO by 7,367 acres. <br /> <br />The amendment would also ensure that any future lands within the SRMA that are acquired by <br />the Federal government would have an NSO stipulation for oil and gas development. There <br />would be no affect on these lands unless acquired by the Federal government. <br /> <br />#4. The proposed amendment would also withdraw the entire 12,237 acres of Federal surface <br />estate within the SRMA from settlement, sale, location, or entry under the general land laws, <br />including the mining laws. Jt would also withdraw 1,020 acres of private or state land with <br />Federal minerals. Additional private or State owned lands within the SRMA would be <br />withdrawn from the lands and mining laws if they were ever acquired by the Federal <br />government. This last category is included in the event the Federal government acquires these <br />private lands. By including these private lands at this time, they would automatically be <br />withdrawn if acquired. <br /> <br />8 <br />