Laserfiche WebLink
2.3 Alternatives Considered,but Eliminated from Further Analysis <br /> No feasible alternatives were identified for the proposed project that would result in <br /> fewer impacts. <br /> CHAPTER 3 <br /> 3.0 ISSUES <br /> 3.1 Issues Analyzed <br /> The BLM TRFO has determined that due to the Proposed Action and Mining stipulations listed as <br /> Design Features and reclamation within the proposed action,there are no resource issues requiring <br /> detailed analysis of this EA. This chapter provides a brief overview of the environmental setting <br /> and the rationale for considering but eliminating from further analysis of the "no issues" <br /> designation. <br /> 3.2 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis <br /> Resources that are not present in the area and are therefore not impacted by the proposed or <br /> alternative actions included: Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC); Lands with <br /> Wilderness Characteristics; Wild and Scenic Rivers; Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas (WSA); <br /> Geology; Solid Mineral Resources; Oil and Gas/Energy Production; Lands/Access; Wild Horse <br /> and Burros; Special Status Species (Plants); Threatened&Endangered(T&E) or Candidate Plant <br /> Species; T&E or Candidate Animal Species; Wildlife (Aquatic/Fish Habitat); Wetlands/Riparian <br /> Zones; Farmlands (Prime or Unique); Floodplains; Socio-Economics (See Appendix C <br /> Interdisciplinary Team checklist). <br /> 3.3 Issues Considered for Analysis in Brief(AIB) <br /> The following resources were considered for analysis, but were eliminated due to negligible <br /> impacts (AIB). Any anticipated impacts are addressed by law or by design features that the <br /> operator has incorporated into the Proposed Action, and for these reasons do not require further <br /> impacts analysis or mitigation. <br /> Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions <br /> Dust (primary concern) and other pollutants (including GHGs) emissions that would occur with <br /> operations(product extraction and processing,associated traffic,and any other surface disturbing <br /> activities)would be minimal and not at levels that would cause adverse human health(or climate <br /> change for GHGs)impacts.The operator will comply with Colorado Department of Public Health <br /> and Environment (CDPHE) permitting requirements that could include following a formal dust <br /> control plan and employing mitigation.There are no"sensitive"public receptors(residences,etc.) <br /> in the vicinity of the pit and dust (primary concern) settles out of the air (deposits to surface) <br /> quickly and relatively close to emissions sources. Design features have been added to the <br /> proposed action to reduce potential impacts to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. <br /> Disappointment Valley Gravel Pit Expansion EA DOI-BLM-CO-S010-2024-0021 EA <br /> Tres Rios Field Office <br /> 9 <br />