Laserfiche WebLink
Environmental Effects <br />Proposed Action <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: There are no direct affects to wetland resource from the proposed <br />action. Overland flow / sheet - water, (particularly associated with frozen ground and rapid snowmelt or <br />extreme thunderstorms) does cross this parcel and potentially could transport, then deposit sediments <br />into watershed floodplain areas without careful planning and designs for storm -water control, or with <br />the removal of substantial vegetation. Storm -water concerns get addressed however in the permitting <br />process site plan development. No additional stipulations are needed for storm water control. <br />Petroleum type spills could also affect distant wetland riparian plants and water sources; however, <br />spills are not anticipated and precautions are in place to stop spill impacts. Failure to address either <br />concern will result in measurable indirect affects to offsite areas. <br />Cumulative Impacts: There is extensive recent and historic hydrologic and riparian function <br />loss in areas near to the proposal and within in the larger scale watershed. Undesirable accelerated <br />overland flow runoff to streams occurs adjacent to the area of interest here and without storm water <br />Best Management Practices (BMPs), this action would be cumulative to the other watershed <br />perturbations. However, runoff is accounted for in the design and permitting process, so likely other <br />issues will get more attention under this review as protection is possible for riparian health. The <br />positive ability of this public land parcel to offset adjacent disturbance is minimal due to its size as <br />discussed in the proposed action. Similarly, if mined with potential watershed impacts addressed, this <br />parcels contribution to other perturbations is minimal. In addition, BLM experience with unfenced, <br />un- managed urban parcels shows that they often get driven upon, etc, and vegetation is sometimes <br />compromised regardless of any planned action. Unrelated land management issues may arise at this <br />location as local knowledge of this land being public increases as the mining being analyzed has <br />heightened awareness that this land is public. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Blizzard conditions are common in the proposal area. As such, it <br />is probable that excavated areas will drift in heavily resulting in short term melt -water at volumes <br />greater than anticipated from annual rain gauge averages. Drift snowmelt will be a likely unanticipated <br />source of runoff (also around buildings equipment) through the expected life of this mine. Equipment <br />should not be left in the pit where interaction between ponded storm -water and contaminant sources <br />are possible. <br />No Action Alternative <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: Not disturbing these lands keeps that specific area intact <br />eliminating concerns addressed in the proposed action. However, if no action is taken, the proposal <br />would not be discretionary under the 1872 mining law and gold mining could occur. As such, the <br />applicant would still be able to proceed without the sale of sand and gravel. Overall, this would have <br />the same effects as the Proposed Action, but is really more similar to Alternative 1. <br />Cumulative Impacts: Similar to the proposed action. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Similar to the proposed action. <br />Other Alternative <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: This alternative is similar to the proposed action with respect to <br />wetland resources; however large quantities of material would not be removed. <br />30 <br />