My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP35525
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP35525
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:12:50 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 7:08:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1978305
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
5/18/2004
Doc Name
Environmental Assessment
From
Nat. Park Service
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.
/
88
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
There are no known historic structures, cultural landscapes, or ethnographic resources on or <br />near the pit site. Also, the actions under either alternative would not have adverse impacts on <br />park museum collections. The park staff consulted with the culturally affiliated tribes, which <br />produced one response that did not indicate any issues or concerns with the project. The park <br />will continue to consult with the tribes as operations progress. For these reasons, these cultural <br />resource topics were not carried through for detailed analysis. <br />1.4.4. Local and Regional Economics <br />Local and regional economics was dismissed as an impact topic because the outcome of <br />whether or not the pit would be expanded to include an additional 19.5 acres would have a <br />negligible impact on local and regional economies. Economic impacts to local or regional <br />supplies of mineral materials are discussed under "Nonfederal Mineral Development." <br />1.4.5. Floodplains <br />The Dickerson Pit site does not contain any surface water resources, and the nearest floodplain <br />is the Gunnison River Floodplain, located approximately 400 feet to the south and across U.S. <br />Highway (US) 50. Because none of the proposed activities at the pit would affect floodplain <br />functions or values would be affected, this topic was dismissed from further analysis. <br />1.4.6. Wetlands <br />Similar to water resources, this topic was dismissed because there are no wetlands on the site, <br />and any downstream wetlands would be protected by the use of the settling pond and erosion <br />control methods that are part of the P{an of Operations. The closest wetlands in the direct path <br />of stormwater discharge from the site are located across US 50, along the Gunnison River. <br />Wetlands associated with Beaver Creek are at least 500 feet away from the site boundary, <br />separated from any site activities by a wooded hillside, and stormwater would not be directed <br />toward Beaver Creek. Therefore, since there would be no discernible direct or indirect impacts <br />to wetlands, this topic was dismissed from further analysis. <br />1.4.7. Park Management and Operations <br />This was dismissed as an impact topic because the extent of additional management required <br />by the proposed action would have few additional impacts to the park. The park staff and staff <br />from the NPS central offices, such as the Geologic Resources Division, would continue with the <br />same type of monitoring of operations and mineral characterization as they have been <br />performing. All archeological recovery would be done under contract, with negligible to minor <br />impacts to park staff who would oversee this effort. Rare plant salvage and monitoring and <br />exotic plant management and monitoring would place additional negligible to minor impact on <br />park staff. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.