My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2011-09-29_PERMIT FILE - M2009056
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Minerals
>
M2009056
>
2011-09-29_PERMIT FILE - M2009056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:43:29 PM
Creation date
10/6/2011 12:04:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2009056
IBM Index Class Name
PERMIT FILE
Doc Date
9/29/2011
Doc Name
Draft Environmental Assessment
From
BLM Royal Gorge Field Office
To
DRMS
Email Name
DB2
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.
/
98
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
be pushed into a berm around the perimeter of the mine area and seeded as recommended by Natural <br />Resource Conservation service for stabilization. <br />These top soils are very shallow, only the top 8 inches should be removed and seeded. The top <br />soil from the access road and any roads inside the 5 acre project site will be stockpiled and seeded. <br />The proposed action will disturb the vegetation on a small area. The reclamation stipulations will be <br />adequate to restore the disturbed area to native plant species. <br />Cumulative Impacts: The stockpiling and seeding of removed top soil will minimize the <br />cumulative impact to the vegetation resource in this area. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: The top soil from the access road and any roads inside the 5 acre <br />project site will be stockpiled and seeded. <br />No Action Alternative <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: If no action is taken, the proposal would not be discretionary <br />under the 1872 mining law. The applicant would still be able to proceed with mining on the parcel; <br />however the sale of sand and gravel would not be permitted. Overall, this would have the same effects <br />on vegetation resources as the Proposed Action, but there would probably be a hill left after <br />reclamation rather than a pit. <br />Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts under the No Action Alternative would be similar to <br />the Proposed Action. <br />Action. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Mitigation and Residual Effects would be similar to the Proposed <br />Alternative 1 <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: Alternative 1 and associated impacts would be similar to the No <br />Action Alternative. <br />Cumulative Impacts: Alternative 1 and associated cumulative impacts would be similar to the <br />No Action Alternative. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Alternative 1 and associated residual impacts would be similar to <br />the No Action Alternative. <br />Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for Plant and Animal Communities: <br />There has been no formal health assessment conducted on the project site. However, based on <br />informal observations it would appear the site is meeting standards for upland vegetation. <br />WETLANDS & RIPARIAN ZONES (includes a finding on Standard 2) <br />Affected Environment: The parcel discussed under any alternative is upland with relatively well - <br />drained soils that does not support wetland development. Riparian wetland resources exist <br />approximately 200 yards north on non BLM land, but wetlands are not present where the mine action <br />is proposed. Seasonal surface water, primarily snowmelt during periods of frozen ground can persist <br />but not for a length of time to support wetland plants. <br />29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.