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
Cadastral Survey <br />There is a private survey in the area, which is in the mining <br />plan. No monuments within mining area to protect. <br />The proposed action will not create or elevate risk factors <br />leading to unwanted wildland fire ignition. <br />Fire <br />Forest Management <br />No forest management activities in the area. <br />Law Enforcement <br />There are no law enforcement issues associated with this <br />action. <br />water in the basin. This would be done through the state water rights process and would most likely <br />require augmentation water be purchased and transferred to the site. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: At the conclusion of mining, the well would need to be plugged, <br />abandoned, and the water rights revert to the BLM or, at the discretion of the BLM, the well and <br />associated water rights would revert directly to the BLM. <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 hydrology and water right as the Proposed Action, but there would probably be a hill left after <br />reclamation rather than pre- mining or slightly lowered relief. <br />Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative impacts under the No Action Alternative would be similar to <br />the Proposed Action. <br />Mitigation/Residual Effects: Mitigation and Residual Effects would be similar to the Proposed <br />Action but no Right -of -Way would be required. <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 />OTHER ELEMENTS: <br />The resources or issues below were dismissed due to their not being present or applicable. <br />Resource /Issue <br />Rationale for dismissal <br />CUMULATIVE IMPACTS SUMMARY: <br />It is assumed that the effects from nearby mining activity have already been absorbed by local <br />communities and are represented in the affected environment (as based on the longevity of nearby <br />modern day mining coupled with continued growth in the community). However, cumulatively <br />speaking, it appears as though the Destiny Mine would make up a small proportion of total mining <br />activities in the study area. Gold reserves in this area may be limited, but sand and gravel is very <br />51 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.