My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
GENERAL53629
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
General Documents
>
GENERAL53629
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 8:39:07 PM
Creation date
11/23/2007 8:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999002
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
1/19/1999
Doc Name
MEMO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
From
STEIGERS CORP
To
DMG
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.
/
41
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
1 <br />CHAPTERONE <br />Purpose and Need , <br />makers the authority to grant, conditionally grant, or deny individual permit applications. <br />Conditions may be applied to the approvals to avoid or mitigate environmental impacts identified <br />in the EIS. Table 1-1 lists the various government agencies with permitting authority. <br />1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SLOPING <br />The BLM initiated the public scoping process in June 1998 to receive public and. agency <br />comment on the types of potential impacts from the proposed activities that should be addressed <br />in the EIS, the envirorunental and social resources that might be affected, and thc alternatives <br />that should be considered. Specifics regazding the scoping process for this analysis are discussed <br />in Chapter 6 of this EIS. <br />On August 12, 1998, the BLM and.Ainerican Soda conducted a community outreach effort to <br />acquaint the Garfield County Human Services Commission with details of the proposed Yankee <br />Gulch Sodium Minerals Project. They attended the group's regular montlily mecsting which was <br />discussing growth issues confronting the county. This outreach was actively sought by BLM and <br />American Soda to acquaint community leaders with the project and its effects an~i to assure that <br />its actions did not disproportionately affect Native American, minority, and/or low-income <br />populations. <br />In addition, the BLM NEPA Handbook (1988) requires that potential impacts be addressed for <br />the following twelve critical elements: <br />• Water Quality <br />• Floodplains <br />• Air Quality <br />• Farmlands, Prime/CJnique* <br />• Threatened and Endangered Species <br />• Wetlands/Riparian Zones <br />• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) <br />• Wild and Scenic Rivers* <br />• Wilderness Areas* <br />• Native American Relations/Concerns <br />• Cultural Resources <br />• Wastes -Hazardous/Solid <br />The elements indicated by an asterisk (*) are not present in the Project Area. An %mpact analysis <br />is, therefore, not applicable for the Proposed Action or any of the alternatives. Native American <br />trust rights, per the Secretary of Interior directive and Executive Order 12898, are also not <br />relevant to the Proposed Project or alternatives. No direct or indirect effects are expected from <br />this project because no such rights have been identified in the Project Area. <br />1-4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.