Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ,. il". <br />".~~~/.." <br />I:J c.; _' ~ 4J J.. <br /> <br />North Park (Jackson County) is an oil and gas rich basin consisting of Mesozoic and Tertiary <br />sedimentary rocks and Tertiary igneous rocks. Oil and gas are currently produced in numerous fields and <br />is an economically valuable resource. Coal resources are also present in North Park, with historic <br />production and known reserves. The railroad was removed from North Park in the recent past. and no <br />bulk shipping or reasonable haul routes currently exist for the coal there. The known coal resource in <br />North. Park is not currently economic, because of low coal prices and high transportation costs. The only <br />near-economic hard rock resource in North Park is Flurspar, of which there are several histonc mines, <br />near Northgate, and near Pitchpine Mountain. These mines are currently shut down, but future production <br />is possible, but only if the current economic scenario changes. Prospecting occurred for copper and gold <br />in the past at the margins of the North Park basin, but the prospects were abandoned as uneconomic. Sand <br />and gravel is an abundant resource throughout North Park. <br /> <br />Middle Park (Grand County) similarly consists of Mesozoic and Tertiary sedimentary rocks and Tertiary <br />ignecus rocks, however, the mineralized setting is rather different from North Park. There is no oil and <br />gas production, and only low potential exists in Middle Park, except at a few isolated locations. No near- <br />economic coal resources exist in the basin, and only small, low grade, isolated occurances are known. No <br />valuable hard rock economic mineral resources exist in the basin. There was prospective interest in both <br />Copper and uranium in the past, but the prospects were abandoned as uneconomic. Abundant sand and <br />gravel resources exist in Middle Park. <br /> <br />Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action: Oil and gas leasing would not be precluded on any of <br />the parcels being evaluated in this document, but could be subject to development restrictions. With the <br />proposed wildlife (NP-I, NP-3, MP-4, MP-5, and MP-8), livestock grazing (MP-6 and MP-9), and water <br />(MP-6) land use priority parcels, restrictions would be placed on development to protect the priority uses. <br />The proposed recreation (NP-2, MP-I and MP-?) land use priority parcels could involve no surface <br />occupancy stipulations to protect developed recreation sites. This is not expected to impact oil and gas <br />develcpment, as there are currently no developed recreation sites on either of the proposed recreation land <br />use priority parcels. The proposed protected area (MP-2, MP-3, and MP-ll) land use priority parcels <br />would be established to protect endangered plant habitat, and requires \he use of surface occupancy <br />stipulations to protect present values. The protected area priority in and by itself would not impact oil and <br />gas development, as any future activity.would be subject to Federal laws protecting Threatened a~d <br />Endangered species habitat regardless of land use priority. Implementation of the above listed restrictions <br />would be through no surface occupancy stipulations, timing limitations, or controlled surface use <br />stipulations. Any oil and gas resources that may exist in these areas could still be developed, but may <br />.require directional drilling from adjacent land, or during seasonal periods when drilling activities would <br />be allowed. <br /> <br />The proposed recreation (NP-2 and MP-?) and protected area (MP-2, MP-3. and MP-II) land use priority <br />parcels would be c1csed to mineral material sales (primarily sand and gravel). Development of mineral <br />materials on the proposed wildlife (NP-I, NP-3, MP-4, MP-5, and MP-8) land use priority parcels would <br />be permissible provided it did not interfere with wildlife habitat values. The considerable volumes of <br />sand and gravel and other mineral materials found thrcughout the Field Office would far overshadow the <br />mineral materials potentially forgone on the above listed parcels as a result of the proposed action. <br /> <br />None of the proposed land use priorities would close any lands to mining for hardrock mineral resources. <br />Restrictions could be placed on any fUlure development to protect applicable land use priority resources. <br />This would have minimal impact on mineral development, as there are no hardrock mineral resources of <br /> <br />13 <br />