My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05115
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05115
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:02 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:52:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8200.766
Description
Gunnison River General
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
8/12/1987
Author
DOI-BLM
Title
Gunnison Basin and the American Flats-Silverton Wilderness - Final Environmental Impact Statement
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
271
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Purpose and Need <br /> <br />4. Effects on Endangered Species <br />Wil dlife and vegetati on inventorf es and <br />consultation with the U.S. Fish and <br />Wil dlife Servi ce di d not i dentf fy any <br />threatened or endangered species in the <br />WSAs. Therefore, this issue was <br />dropped from further consideration. <br /> <br />5. Effects on Timber Production - None <br />of the lands in any of the WSAs are <br />under intensive forest management. <br />Intensive management was determined <br />incompatible with the primitive <br />recreat; on use in this area. <br />Therefore, timber production is not an <br />issue. <br /> <br />6. Effects on Taxes and Income - Both <br />patented and unpatented claims within <br />the WSAs generate property taxes for <br />Hinsdale and Ouray Counties. The <br />una vail abil i ty of these 1 ands for <br />mining claims, if designated <br />wilderness, would reduce thfs tax <br />income. Total tax revenues for both <br />patented and unpatented claims <br />constituted less than three precent of <br />the county's total tax income. <br />Therefore, tax loss is not considered a <br />significant issue. With the exception <br />of Redcloud Peak WSA the level of <br />mineral development is predfcted to be <br />the same wi th or wi thout wil derness, <br />and therefore effects on income are <br />considered only for Redcloud Peak. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM <br />OETAILED ANALYSIS <br /> <br />American Flats WSA <br /> <br />One comment received suggested the area <br />between Engineer Pass and the south <br />boundary of the WSA be considered as an <br />alternative for stu~ as wilderness. <br />This area was eliminated during the <br />intensive inventory phase and <br />therefore. cannot be considered by the <br />BLM during the study phase. <br /> <br />Handies Peak WSA <br /> <br />Several comments were received which <br />recommended that that BLM land south <br />and east of Cottonwood Creek and the <br />adjacent U.S. Forest Service land be <br />found as suitable for wilderness <br />designation. The area of National <br />Forest land was analyzed by the Forest <br />Service and sUbsequently released from <br />wilderness consideration durfng the <br />RARE II process. Consequently. it was <br />not appropriate to consider this area <br />in the EIS. <br /> <br />Redcloud Peak WSA <br /> <br />Originally, the Conflict Resolution I <br />Alternative for this WSA included the <br />Alpine Gulch drainage. The boundary of <br />this alternative was modified as the <br />result of a comment at the Dever <br />workshop that Alpine Gulch was a <br />possible access route for the <br />development of the alunite deposit on <br />Red Mountain. Since the purpose of the <br />original alternative was to provide a <br />non-wilderness alternative for the <br />alunite development and possible <br />transportation routes, the boundary was <br />modified accordingly. <br /> <br />PRESENT MANAGEMENT <br /> <br />these WSAs have been managed to protect <br />wilderness resource values since passage of <br />the Federal Land Policy and Management Act <br />of 1976 (FLPMA). Section 603(c) of FLPMA <br />states: <br /> <br />During the period of review of such areas <br />and until Congress has determined <br />otherwise, the Secretary shall continue to <br />manage such lands accordfng to his <br />authority under this act and other <br />applicable laws in a manner so as not to <br />impair the suitability of such areas for <br />preservation as wl1 derness, subject, <br />however. to the continuati on of exis ti ng <br />mining and grazfng uses and mineral leasing <br />in the manner and degree in <br /> <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.