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
and emerging in a spring elsewhere will not be substantially altered chemically to any measurable <br />degree. Sub - surface geo- chemistry interaction upon storm- waters entering the ground water should be <br />similar to that soaking in on native surface soils. <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 />aquatic resources. <br />Cumulative Impacts: Similar to the proposed action. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Similar to the proposed action. <br />Finding on the Public Land Health Standard for Plant and Animal Communities: No <br />aquatic wildlife communities are directly affected by this action on public land, or anticipated to be so <br />on local private lands. <br />WILDLIFE, TERRESTRIAL (includes a finding on Standard 3) <br />Affected Environment: The proposed project has an elevation of about 9,900 feet with an annual <br />precipitation of 16 -18 inches. The parcel is dry with only upland vegetation. The project site <br />vegetation is subalpine grassland and the adjacent slopes are lodgepole pine and spruce -fir. The site is <br />within an area of exurban development containing several dwellings, roads, and infrastructure. <br />SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS <br />Elk: The elk is a large cervid whose general body color is pale tan or brown. Generalist feeders, elk <br />are both grazers and browsers. In the northern and central Rocky Mountains, grasses and shrubs <br />compose most of the winter diet, with the former becoming of primary importance in the spring <br />months. Elk tend to inhabit higher elevations during spring and summer and migrate to lower <br />elevations for winter range. During winter, elk form large mixed herds on favored winter range. Elk <br />are found throughout the area of this project. <br />32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.