REP35525 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3.0. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ,~ Methodology This section describes the existing environment that would be affected by the proposed action and the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts under the two alternatives. Impacts are described in terms of context, duration, and intensity. - The context or extent of the impact may be localized (affecting the immediate project area) or widespread (affecting other areas of the park and/or the region); the context may be specifically described in the impact topic. A The duration of impacts could be short term, ranging from days to approximately 3 years in duration, or long term, extending up to 20 years or longer. A The intensity and type of impact is described as negligible, minor, moderate, or major and as beneficial or adverse. Where the intensity of an impact can be described quantitatively, the numerical data are presented. However, most impact analyses are qualitative. Cumulative Impacts The CEQ regulations, which implement the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), require assessment of cumulative impacts in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative impacts are defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR 1508.7). The following descriptions of park development and operations, and adjacent land uses and land use permitting provide the basis for analyzing cumulative impacts in this EA. These descriptions should be used in conjunction with the description of the affected environment for nonfederal mineral development that follows in Section 3.1. Park Development and Operations Congress enacted the Colorado River Storage Project Act to, among other things, conserve the scenery, natural, historic, and archeological resources and wildlife in what is now Curecanti National Recreation Area. The park staff continues to conduct research and planning related to these purposes. There is an ongoing Resource Protection Study that is focused on assessing area resources to recommend alternatives for protection of resource value and character. The Dickerson Pit site has not been specifically addressed in the study. The outcome of the study will provide recommendations for park boundaries and protection of the resources of the park. Also, in some cases, the park has purchased land to protect scenic viewsheds. The BOR, which manages the reservoir and related facilities, is an important partner in the ongoing studies. The BOR does not have any specific policies regarding the operation of the pit (Schroeder 2004). Adjacent Land Uses and Land Use Planning The BLM and CDOW, respectively, own the lands immediately to the north and west of the Dickerson Pit. The lands in the project area managed by the BLM include one mineral pit, the McCabe Pit, a small community pit located between the park and Gunnison. There are no specific plans for the BLM lands surrounding the Dickerson Pit (ToUefson 2004). The CDOW lands are being managed for wildlife use and include a Watchable Wildlife viewing area that is close to pit operations. People using the parking area wilt be able to see the pit and may experience some visual impacts from the operation; however, the pit operations are not 32