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
therefore fall outside of the realm of visual resources and are analyzed under socio- economics which <br />can be found in the Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Report located in Appendix 4. <br />Cumulative Impacts: None <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: In order to further reduce impacts to visual resources and <br />indirectly socio- economics it is recommended that the berm be designed and constructed to mimic <br />nature as opposed to a traditional uniform berm. It is also recommended that the proposed planting <br />include trees found in the area and be placed to appear natural looking to break up the line and form of <br />the berm. These should not be lined uniformly but placed in random natural places to break up the <br />lines. In addition, the Noise Assessment that was finalized in March 2011 recommends keeping <br />operations within the pit to mitigate noise impacts, which would also benefit visual resources. <br />No Action Alternative <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: The No Action Alternative would be similar to Alternative 1 in <br />that placer mining would still be allowed and the same mitigation measures would be recommended <br />including the construction of the berm to screen equipment and buildings from view. <br />Cumulative Impacts: None <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Same as proposed action. <br />Alternative 1 <br />Direct and Indirect Impacts: The berm would still be created under this alternative and would <br />result in similar impacts to the proposed action. However, since the sand and gravel would not be sold, <br />stockpiles would likely be larger and more visible from the KOP creating moderate contrasts to the <br />landscape. This level of contrast would meet the Class III Objectives for the area as established in the <br />RMP but at greater levels than the proposed action. Indirect impacts to visual resources would be the <br />same as the proposed action therefore refer to Appendix 3 for the Socioeconomic and Environmental <br />Justice Report. <br />Cumulative Impacts: None <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Same as proposed action. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE <br />The detailed analysis of the affected environment and environmental effects pertaining to <br />Environmental Justice can be found in the Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Report located in <br />Appendix 4. The discussion below contains excerpts from this report. <br />Affected Environment: As determined in the report located in Appendix 4, minority groups do exist in <br />the area, but per the Council on Environmental Quality's Environmental Justice Guidelines for NEPA, <br />they cannot be considered environmental justice populations. <br />Environmental Effects <br />Proposed Action <br />41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.