Laserfiche WebLink
Comparisons between Alternative 1 and the Proposed Action (applicant proposal) are as follows: <br />1. Alternative 1 will require the same amount of excavation as the proposed action. <br />2. After running the material through the trommel and wash plant, Alternative lwould not have <br />secondary sorting into sizes ranging from 3/8" to 4 ". The Proposed Action is to sort this into <br />various sizes and sell and/or give the gravel away free for public uses (i.e. county roads). <br />3. Gravel material that is excavated can be expected to have a swell factor. The Proposed Action <br />would result in a final land configuration of either pre- mining or slightly lowered relief, as the <br />excess gravel not needed for reclamation would be sold and /or given away. In Alternative 1, <br />little or no material other than gold would be removed and the final land configuration would <br />be of raised relief due the swell factor. In addition, the acreage to store the piles and length of <br />storage during active operation could be greater than what is being identified in the Proposed <br />Action. <br />4. Secondary screening would be eliminated under Alternative 1, resulting in some reduction of <br />noise. The applicant however, has provided a noise mitigation plan under the Proposed Action. <br />So, there is potential for no differences being noted between the two alternatives. <br />5. There will be less truck traffic and associated dust generation with Alternative 1. The applicant <br />will be required to implement dust mitigation for all aspects of the operation under both <br />Alternative 1 and the Proposed Action. So there is potential for no differences being noted <br />between the two alternatives. <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT CARRIED FORWARD: <br />One of the proposed alternatives suggested during the September 22, 2009 public scoping meeting was <br />to move the proposed mining operation to a different location within the boundaries of the claim. <br />However, due to the physical location of the locatable resource being centered in the northeast portion <br />of the BLM land and associated claim, this alternative could not be considered further because it would <br />most likely be economically infeasible. <br />PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW: <br />Name of Plan: <br />Royal Gorge Resource Area, Resource Management Plan (RMP), Record of Decision (ROD) <br />Date Approved: May, 1996 <br />Decision Number: 4- 33/2 -4 -7 <br />Decision Language: <br />Areas will be open to mineral entry and available for mineral materials development: <br />administered under existing regulations, limited by closure if necessary and special mitigation <br />will be developed to protect values on a case -by -case basis. <br />Standards for Public Land Health: In January 1997, Colorado BLM approved the Standards for Public <br />Land Health. These standards cover upland soils, riparian systems, plant and animal communities, <br />10 <br />