Nick87
Well-known member
Thats what I was looking for. Idk what CX worthy is though?"Damage" is a subjective term, but obviously surface disturbing activities. Not even CX worthy.
Bulldozers at Big Bend
- Thread starter Perlodid
- Start date
Salmonchaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,168
When I was a young man I had a job felling old growth timber on road right of ways. Closest thing to a dozer was my size 12 boots.The road had already been surveyed. I would try to drive as many of their survey stakes into the ground as I could with those 200 ft. Tall Doug fir. Some of the spur roads we cut were two mile hikes in. I went to law enforcement from logging, logging is dangerous. The wife and I have hiked most of the trail systems in Big Bend since I retired. As a retired cop I have an understanding, having worked dope, of the cartels. I'm pretty sure ice has killed more Americans than the cartels have in the last year. Funny thing is the cartel guys I arrested weren't masked. I'm not afraid of the cartels when I'm in Big Bend, they're not efing idiots. I can only imagine what they think about the feds building a wall in some of that country.
CX = Categorical Exclusion (my attempt at humor for the current NEPA process on this project).
Here is a list of DOI CXs by Bureau.
A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusion is a category of federal actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. When a project qualifies, agencies do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement.
Here is a list of DOI CXs by Bureau.
A National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusion is a category of federal actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. When a project qualifies, agencies do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement.
WyoCoalMiner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2024
- Messages
- 493
How so? That's how it works around here. We generally don't drop folks off from a helo but I would be interested to hear how you gets folks into an area.
I picked up what you were laying down. NEPA nomenclature aint for everyone.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
We can not do construction in order to go survey to assess what the impacts may be of construction. That would be assinine. And we do drop folks off with helos. Or use horses. Or atvs. Or hike. Or boat. Or drive. Depends on the location, terrain, resources available, the type of project being proposed, logistics, and the land designation. But typically construction of an access road is considered as part of the proposed action. It’s not something you just go do prior to analyzing the proposed action.
I’m not saying no clearances were done for this particular work - I have no idea. I was more commenting on the supposition that the feds can just build a road just to gain access to a location to do the surveys necessary to meet those regulatory requirements. For example, no one blasted a road through miles of proposed famous transboundary pipeline route so they could go conduct the necessary surveys to determine the impacts of the pipeline. Access roads are part of what is being reviewed in the first place.
The kind of nonsensical responses from CBP lead me to believe they haven’t completed the requisite reviews. The amount of ground disturbance shown in the videos is most certainly something that should have been reviewed and surveyed prior to construction. I would think if CBP/NPS had done it, they would have produced the documentation instead of stumbling around with changing stories about what they’re actually doing in there. Honestly, I doubt CBP are even aware of what regulatory reviews exist from a land-management perspective.
Similar threads
