DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado United States Department of Interior Final Environmental Bureau of Land Management Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands United States Travel Management Department of Agriculture Forest Service USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forest USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado April 2010 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. i Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison, Delta, Hinsdale, and Saguache Counties, Colorado Joint Lead Agencies: USDA Forest Service, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) National Forest USDI Bureau of Land Management, Gunnison Field Office Responsible Officials: Charles S. Richmond, Forest Supervisor, GMUG National Forest 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado 81416 Brian St. George, Field Manager BLM, Gunnison Field Office 216 N. Colorado St. Gunnison, Colorado 81230-2197 For Information Contact: Gary S. Shellhorn GMUG National Forest 2250 Highway 50 Delta, Colorado 81416 (970) 874-6666 [email protected] Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the effects of modifying the current travel plan pertaining to motorized and mechanized vehicles for those federal lands managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the upper Gunnison Basin. The purpose of changing the existing travel management plan is to complete the intended route by route assessments of existing roads and trails to determine which are needed to provide for a range of recreational users while balancing resource protection and access needs. This was a commitment made in the Gunnison Travel Interim Restrictions (April 2001) by both the Forest Service and the BLM. Additionally, the Forest Service, in order to comply with its 2005 Travel Management Rule mandates, shall decide which routes on the National Forest System lands are to be designated open to the public for motorized travel and prepare a Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM). The existing conditions resulting from the Gunnison Travel Interim Restrictions (April 2001) are addressed in analysis of the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, the current travel system is maintained. Each of the four action alternatives describe a variation and differing combination of route designations and mode of travel on approximately 3,730 miles of roads and about 1,050 miles of trails on federal lands in the upper Gunnison Basin. Under all the alternatives, cross-country travel by motorized and mechanized vehicles would continue to be prohibited and travel by these vehicles would be restricted to designated routes. This analysis of travel does not address over-snow travel, travel in Wilderness, or travel across private lands or on roads and highways under the jurisdiction of the state, county, or cities. Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Comments received by the public and interested parties during the Draft EIS (DEIS) comment period were considered and evaluated during the process of completing the FEIS by revising, updating and adding the Preferred Alternative to the DEIS. The development of the FEIS included the inclusion of the Forest Service and BLM Preferred Alternative. That alternative was identified pursuant to NEPA (40 CFR 1502.2) for the Record of Decision (ROD). The public comments and responses to the comments are contained in an Appendix to the FEIS. The FEIS is open to public review for no less than 30 days before a ROD will be completed by the responsible officials for the Forest Service and BLM. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Reviewers of the FEIS should send comments pertaining to the final document in during the 30-day review period to make their views known to the deciding officials (40 CFR 1506.10). Send Comments to: Gunnison Travel Management Planning Team GMUG National Forest 2250 Hwy 50 Delta, CO 81401 Fax: (970) 874-6698 (reference Gunnison Travel Management) Email: [email protected] Public review period: there is, at a minimum, a 30-day review period for the FEIS after the publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (40 CFR 1506.10 (b)(2)). After the 30-day review period the Forest Service and BLM will publish Record of Decision documents for both agencies. The RODs will describe the responsible officials final decision, identify all alternatives considered, which alternative was considered to be the environmentally preferable, discuss factors which were balanced by the agency in making the decision, and possible mitigation to be implemented. Project Website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/travel_mgmt Table of Contents — iii Final Environmental Impact Statement Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Table of Contents SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................................... 5 DOCUMENT STRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 5 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Location of Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Current Travel Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 8 Why Replace the Current Travel Management Direction? .................................................................................. 9 TRAVEL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................... 10 DRAFT EIS PROPOSED ACTION ................................................................................................................. 15 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................................................... 15 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS AND NEEDS ................................................................................................ 15 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 16 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ............................................................................................................................ 17 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................................................................ 19 Legal Foundation for Decision Making .............................................................................................................. 20 Responsible Officials ........................................................................................................................................ 20 Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority .................................................. 20 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................................... 22 SCOPING ISSUES....................................................................................................................................... 23 Issue 1: Scope of Draft EIS Analysis ................................................................................................................ 24 Issue 2: Recreational Experience and Opportunity ........................................................................................... 25 Issue 3: Route Integrity ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Issue 4: Resource Protection ............................................................................................................................ 26 Issue 5: Access................................................................................................................................................. 26 Issue 6: Compatibility and Safety...................................................................................................................... 26 Issue 7: Maintenance and Funding ..................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1:13-Cv-01723-RBJ Document 91 Filed 06/27/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 36
    Case 1:13-cv-01723-RBJ Document 91 Filed 06/27/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge R. Brooke Jackson Civil Action No. 13-cv-01723-RBJ HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES, WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, and SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, DANIEL JIRÓN, in his official capacity as Regional Forester for the U.S. Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region, SCOTT ARMENTROUT, in his official capacity as Supervisor of the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests, and RUTH WELCH, in her official capacity as the Bureau of Land Management’s Colorado State Office Acting Director, Defendants, and ARK LAND COMPANY, INC., and MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, L.L.C., Intervenor-Defendants. ORDER The North Fork Valley in western Colorado is blessed with valuable resources. The area hosts several coal mines as well as beautiful scenery, abundant wildlife, and outstanding recreational opportunities. And as is sometimes the case in rich places like this, people disagree about how to manage the development of those resources. In the case before the Court, the plaintiff environmental organizations seek judicial review of three agency decisions that together 1 Case 1:13-cv-01723-RBJ Document 91 Filed 06/27/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 36 authorized on-the-ground mining exploration activities in a part of the North Fork Valley called the Sunset Roadless Area. These exploration activities are scheduled to begin on July 1, 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado a Users Guide to the Classification Project
    A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado A Users Guide to the Classification Project September 1, 1999 By Gwen Kittel, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen and John Sanderson Clockwise from top: Conejos River, Conejos County, Populus angustifolia-Picea pungens/Alnus incana Riparian Woodland Flattop Wilderness, Garfield County, Carex aquatilis Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation South Platte River, Logan County, Populus deltoides/Carex lanuginosa Riparian Woodland California Park, Routt County, Salix boothii/Mesic Graminoids Riparian Shrubland Joe Wright Creek, Larimer County, Abies lasiocarpa-Picea engelmannii/Alnus incana Riparian Forest Dolores River, San Miguel County, Forestiera pubescens Riparian Shrubland Center Photo San Luis Valley, Saguache County, Juncus balticus Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation (Photography by Gwen Kittel) 2 Prepared by: Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Bldg. Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 [email protected] This report should be cited as follows: Kittel, Gwen, Erika VanWie, Mary Damm, Reneé Rondeau, Steve Kettler, Amy McMullen, and John Sanderson. 1999. A Classification of Riparian Wetland Plant Associations of Colorado: User Guide to the Classification Project. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 80523 For more information please contact: Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 254 General Service Building, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523. (970)
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Fields of Northwestern Colorado and Northeastern Utah
    COAL FIELDS OF NORTHWESTERN COLORADO AND NORTHEASTERN UTAH. By HOYT S. GALE. INTRODUCTION. NATURE OF THE PRESENT INVESTIGATION. This paper is a preliminary statement of the results of work in the coal fields of northwestern Colorado and northeastern Utah during the summer of 1907.° In 1905 a preliminary reconnaissance of the Yampa coal field, of Routt County, was made.6 In the summer of 1906 similar work was extended southwestward from the Yampa field, and the Danforth Hills and Grand Hogback coal fields, of Routt, Rio Blanco, and Garfield counties, were mapped.6 The work of the past season was a continuation of that of the two preceding years, extend­ ing the area studied westward through Routt and Rio Blanco counties, Colo., and including some less extensive coal fields in^Uinta County, Utah, and southern Uinta County, Wyo. ACCESSIBILITY. At present these fields have no_ railroad connection, although surveys for several projected lines have recently been made into the region. Of these lines, the Denver, Northwestern and Pacific Railway ("Moffat road") is under active construction in .the eastern part of Routt County and bids fair to push westward not far from the lower Yampa and White River fields in the near future. An extension of the Uintah Railway has been surveyed from Dragon to Vernal, Utah, crossing the projected route of the "MofFat road" near Green River. The Union Pacific Railroad has made a preliminary survey south from Rawlins, Wyo., intending to reach the Yampa Valley in the vicinity of Craig. a A more complete report combining the results of the preceding season's work in the Danforth Hills and Grand Hogback fields with those of last season's work as outlined here, together with detailed contour maps of the whole area, will be published as a (separate bulletin of the Survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Uncompahgre Wilderness Trails
    TH Little Cimarron TH Big WARNING: Do not use this map for wilderness Blue navigation. It is intended for general reference 864 UNCOMPAHGRE 229 only. Detailed maps are available at the locations 863 East shown on the back panel. Fork 867 TH Fall WILDERNESS 858 861 TH Creek 868 149 Little Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, 232 Elk Fall Creek TH 868 Little Cimarron River & Gunnison National Forests East Fork Cimarron River A 254 231 Straley 03/14/11 12 219 Middle Fork Cimarron River West Fork Cimarron River Owl Creek 233 Pass Sheep Mountain 253 Stealey 219 228 Mountain Big Blue Creek Middle TH Fork 244 860 218 Slide Courthouse Pinnacle 229 Lake Mountain 218 Ridge Dunsinane Elk Creek 144 Mountain 218 857 Precipice 211 Peak 243 Dixie 550 258 Ridge Porphory 227 Basin Silver Jack 232 Mine Ruins 235 212 Silver Mountain 216 216 234 TH Independence 138 226 231 228 233 137 Cutler Redcliff 244 Peak TH 236 235 216 Coxcomb Peak 227 232 872 220 236.3A 217 132 142 Uncompahgre Peak Larson 14,309 Ft Lakes Matterhorn 135 228 239 Lake Fork Gunnison River Peak 871 Cow Creek Uncompahgre 236 B Wetterhorn Wetterhorn 239 TH 149 Peak Basin Peak 233 14 14,015 Ft 205 233 233 226 Crystal Peak 256 235 136 Crystal Uncompahgre River 214 Bighorn Larson 241 Ridge 245 Crystal Broken 238 TH North Hill Lake Bridge of 236 215 Heaven 877 226 TH Matterhorn USFS 140 Lake City 1 Mile Blackwall BLM Mountain Ouray 870 215 20 Alpine Loop USFS Capitol City Scenic Byway Primary Highway Summit Over 13,000 Feet Wildhorse BLM (Site) Peak Improved Road Stock May Be Restricted Hensen Creek A1 Dallas A2 Courthouse Mountain A3 Sheep Mountain Primitive Road TH Trailhead TH Bear 241 A4 Alpine Plateau Creek B1 Ouray National Forest Trail 235 National Forest Trail Sunshine B2 Wetterhorn Peak American Darley Varden Flats Mountain B3 Uncompahgre Peak NOTICE: Sheep grazing is permitted in the Uncompahgre Wilderness, Mountain B4 Lake City and livestock protection dogs may be encountered near bands of Forest Boundary 118 National Forest Road sheep.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
    Case 1:19-cv-01920-RBJ Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 33 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-1920 WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, SIERRA CLUB, and WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, Petitioners, v. DAVID L. BERNHARDT, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, JOSEPH R. BALASH, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, United States Department of the Interior, GLENDA H. OWENS, Acting Director of the United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, DAVID BERRY, Regional Director, Western Region Office of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Federal Respondents, and MOUNTAIN COAL COMPANY, LLC, Intervenor-Respondents. FEDERAL RESPONDENTS’ OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ OPENING BRIEF ON THE MERITS Case 1:19-cv-01920-RBJ Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 33 INTRODUCTION For the fourth time in ten years, Petitioner WildEarth Guardians, joined by other conservation groups, asks this Court to halt coal mining operations on National Forest System (“NFS”) lands in the North Fork Valley of western Colorado. In the first and third challenges, each alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the Court rejected petitioners’ varied reasons why the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), or the United States Forest Service (“Service”) allegedly erred in their administrative proceedings. In the second challenge, High Country Conservation Advocates v. United States Forest Service, 52 F. Supp. 3d 1174 (D. Colo.
    [Show full text]
  • Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC)
    Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Summits on the Air USA - Colorado (WØC) Association Reference Manual Document Reference S46.1 Issue number 3.2 Date of issue 15-June-2021 Participation start date 01-May-2010 Authorised Date: 15-June-2021 obo SOTA Management Team Association Manager Matt Schnizer KØMOS Summits-on-the-Air an original concept by G3WGV and developed with G3CWI Notice “Summits on the Air” SOTA and the SOTA logo are trademarks of the Programme. This document is copyright of the Programme. All other trademarks and copyrights referenced herein are acknowledged. Page 1 of 11 Document S46.1 V3.2 Summits on the Air – ARM for USA - Colorado (WØC) Change Control Date Version Details 01-May-10 1.0 First formal issue of this document 01-Aug-11 2.0 Updated Version including all qualified CO Peaks, North Dakota, and South Dakota Peaks 01-Dec-11 2.1 Corrections to document for consistency between sections. 31-Mar-14 2.2 Convert WØ to WØC for Colorado only Association. Remove South Dakota and North Dakota Regions. Minor grammatical changes. Clarification of SOTA Rule 3.7.3 “Final Access”. Matt Schnizer K0MOS becomes the new W0C Association Manager. 04/30/16 2.3 Updated Disclaimer Updated 2.0 Program Derivation: Changed prominence from 500 ft to 150m (492 ft) Updated 3.0 General information: Added valid FCC license Corrected conversion factor (ft to m) and recalculated all summits 1-Apr-2017 3.0 Acquired new Summit List from ListsofJohn.com: 64 new summits (37 for P500 ft to P150 m change and 27 new) and 3 deletes due to prom corrections.
    [Show full text]
  • A Single-Neuron: Current Trends and Future Prospects
    cells Review A Single-Neuron: Current Trends and Future Prospects Pallavi Gupta 1, Nandhini Balasubramaniam 1, Hwan-You Chang 2, Fan-Gang Tseng 3 and Tuhin Subhra Santra 1,* 1 Department of Engineering Design, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Tamil Nadu 600036, India; [email protected] (P.G.); [email protected] (N.B.) 2 Department of Medical Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan; [email protected] 3 Department of Engineering and System Science, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu 30013, Taiwan; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +91-044-2257-4747 Received: 29 April 2020; Accepted: 19 June 2020; Published: 23 June 2020 Abstract: The brain is an intricate network with complex organizational principles facilitating a concerted communication between single-neurons, distinct neuron populations, and remote brain areas. The communication, technically referred to as connectivity, between single-neurons, is the center of many investigations aimed at elucidating pathophysiology, anatomical differences, and structural and functional features. In comparison with bulk analysis, single-neuron analysis can provide precise information about neurons or even sub-neuron level electrophysiology, anatomical differences, pathophysiology, structural and functional features, in addition to their communications with other neurons, and can promote essential information to understand the brain and its activity. This review highlights various single-neuron models and their behaviors, followed by different analysis methods. Again, to elucidate cellular dynamics in terms of electrophysiology at the single-neuron level, we emphasize in detail the role of single-neuron mapping and electrophysiological recording. We also elaborate on the recent development of single-neuron isolation, manipulation, and therapeutic progress using advanced micro/nanofluidic devices, as well as microinjection, electroporation, microelectrode array, optical transfection, optogenetic techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Boatlists\Boatlistdraft-2021.Xlsx Boat Name Owner Prefix Sail No
    C:\BoatLists\boatlistdraft-2021.xlsx Boat Name Owner Prefix Sail No. Suffix Hull Boat Type Classification Abraham C 2821 RS Feva XL Sailing Dinghy Dunikolu Adams R 10127 Wayfarer Sailing Dinghy Masie Mary Adlington CPLM 18ft motorboat Motor Boat Isla Rose Adlington JPN Tosher Sailing Boat Demelza Andrew JA 28 Heard 28 Sailing Boat Helen Mary Andrew KC 11 Falmouth Working Boat Sailing Boat Mary Ann Andrew KC 25 Falmouth Working Boat Sailing Boat Verity Andrew N 20 Sunbeam Sailing Boat West Wind Andrew N 21 Tosher 20 Sailing Boat Andrews K 208210 white Laser 4.7 Sailing Dinghy Hermes Armitage AC 70 dark blue Ajax Sailing Boat Armytage CD RIB Motor Boat Alice Rose Ashworth TGH Cockwell's 38 Motor Boat Maggie O'Nare Ashworth TGH 10 Cornish Crabber Sailing Cruiser OMG Ashworth* C & G 221 Laser Pico Sailing Dinghy Alcazar Bailey C Motor Boat Bailey C RS Fevqa Sailing Dinghy Dither of Dart Bailey T white Motor Sailer Coconi Barker CB 6000 Contessa 32 Sailing Cruiser Diana Barker G Rustler 24 Sailing Boat Barker G 1140 RS200 Sailing Dinghy Gemini Barnes E RIB Motor Boat Pelorus Barnes E GBR 3731L Arcona 380 Sailing Cruiser Barnes E 177817 Laser Sailing Dinghy Barnes F & W 1906 29er Sailing Dinghy Lady of Linhay Barnes MJ Catamaran Motor Boat Triumph Barnes MJ Westerly Centaur Sailing Cruiser Longhaul Barstow OG Orkney Longliner 16 Motor Boat Barö Barstow OG 2630 Marieholm IF-Boat Sailing Cruiser Rinse & Spin Bateman MCW 5919 Laser Pico Sailing Dinghy Why Hurry Batty-Smith JR 9312 Mirror Sailing Dinghy Natasha Baylis M Sadler 26 Sailing Cruiser
    [Show full text]
  • Colorado's 303(D) List of Impaired Waters
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION 5 CCR 1002-93 REGULATION #93 COLORADO'S SECTION 303(D) LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION LIST 93.1 Authority These regulations are promulgated pursuant to section 25-8-101 et seq C.R.S. as amended, and in particular, 25-8-202 (1) (a), (b), (i), (2) and (6); 25-8-203 and 25-8-204. 93.2 Purpose This regulation establishes Colorado’s Lists of Impaired Waters. These waters include Water- Quality-Limited Segments Requiring Total Maximum Daily Loads (“TMDLs”), impaired waters that do not require a TMDL, and Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List: (1) The list of Water-Quality-Limited Segments Requiring TMDLs fulfills requirements of section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act which requires that states submit to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a list of those waters for which technology-based effluent limitations and other required controls are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards. These segments are included in Section 93.3 with parameters included in the Clean Water Section 303(d) Impairment column. (2) Colorado’s Monitoring and Evaluation List identifies water bodies where there is reason to suspect water quality problems, but there is also uncertainty regarding one or more factors, such as the representative nature of the data. Water bodies that are impaired, but it is unclear whether the cause of impairment is attributable to pollutants as opposed to pollution, are also placed on the Monitoring and Evaluation List. This Monitoring and Evaluation list is a state-only document that is not subject to EPA approval.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Assessment
    Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management Plan - Biological Assessment BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT for GUNNISON BASIN FEDERAL LANDS TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLAN Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Gunnison Ranger District Prepared by Clay Speas (Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Lead) Michael Jackson (Gunnison RD Terrestrial Biologist – retired) INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this biological assessment is to determine the likely effects of the preferred alternative of the proposed Gunnison Basin Federal Lands Travel Management (GTM) project on federally listed species (endangered, threatened, and proposed) in the planning area. The federal lands addressed are National Forest System lands on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG) that include the Gunnison and Paonia Ranger Districts and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Gunnison Field Office. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species, and to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed or proposed species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. A Biological Assessment must be prepared for federal actions that are ―major construction activities‖ (also defined as a project significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined under NEPA) to evaluate the potential effects of the proposal on listed or proposed species. The contents of the BA are at the discretion of the federal agency, and will depend on the nature of the federal action (50 CFR 402.12(f)).
    [Show full text]
  • West Elk Coal Mine: Complaint
    Case 1:19-cv-01920 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 50 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:19-1920 WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, HIGH COUNTRY CONSERVATION ADVOCATES, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, SIERRA CLUB, and WILDERNESS WORKSHOP, Petitioners, v. DAVID L. BERNHARDT, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of the Interior; UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT; JOSEPH BALASH, in his official capacity as Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, GLENDA OWENS, in her official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; DAVID BERRY, in his official capacity as Regional Director of U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Western Region; Federal Respondents. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AGENCY ACTION INTRODUCTION 1. For the past thirty-seven years, the beautiful, forested mountains of Western Colorado have been under siege as the West Elk Coal Mine has metastasized across the landscape. Through a series of more than a dozen modifications to its federal coal leases and mining plans, West Elk has continually grown and now sprawls over nearly 20,000 acres of lands, including more than 13,000 acres of National Forest lands. In 2017, BLM and the Forest Case 1:19-cv-01920 Document 1 Filed 07/02/19 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 50 Service authorized the most recent 1,720 acre expansion of West Elk into the previously undisturbed Sunset Roadless Area. 2. This action challenges Federal Defendants’ recent approval of the “Mining Plan” authorizing the development of publicly owned coal across this new expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Hinsdale County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update
    Hinsdale County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update November 2019 Hinsdale County Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update November 2019 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background and Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Multi-Jurisdictional Planning ........................................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Plan Organization ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 SECTION 2 – COMMUNITY PROFILE ................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Geography and Climate ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 History .....................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]