REP35525 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Park System resource is strictly liable to the United States for response costs and for damages resulting from such destruction, loss or injury. 2.9. Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis During the seeping process for this project, two alternatives were considered to reduce impacts of the proposed expansion. These alternatives were discussed in consultation with the NPS park staff, Regional Support Office, and Washington Support Office for technical guidance. For the reasons described below, these alternatives were not subjected to further analysis. NPS Acquisition of the Mineral Rights that are Part of Gunnison Gravel's Proposal ,~ The NPS has examined the possibility of acquiring the Dickerson's mineral estate, but with severe budget reductions, funding is not available to purchase the mineral estate in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, should the opportunity ever arise to purchase the Dickerson's mineral estate, the acquisition would be a categorical exclusion under 3.4(C)(1) of DO-12, "Land acquisition within established park boundaries, if future anticipated uses would have no potential for environmental impact." 1 Sale or Donation of Land to Adjoining Governmental Agency One public commenter asked if the pit could be sold or donated to an adjacent governmental land management agency, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW), whose lands border the site on the north and west, respectively. Neither of these agencies has expressed any interest in acquiring the site. In addition, the site's operations would not be compatible with wildlife use on CDOW property, Although the operation might be more compatible with BLM land use plans for this area, the operation would still be located at the park entrance and adjacent to park property, so a land ownership transfer would not eliminate the visual or noise impacts to park visitors from pit operations. For these reasons, this alternative was not further considered. 2.10. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Section 101 of NEPA states that "...it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to... (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for aN Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which would permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources" [42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq. §101 (b)]. The environmentally preferred alternative is based on these national environmental policy goals. Under Alternative A, No Action, the expansion would not occur. Because there would be no new impacts from what would occur under the existing permit (a limit of 12.4 acres), Alternative A would provide the greatest protection of area and park resources and values. Alternative A meets five of the six criteria (1 through 4, and 6) and is therefore the environmentally preferred alternative. 25