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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.That’s not how it works.
I picked up what you were laying down. NEPA nomenclature aint for everyone.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.
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.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.
Do you know if the dozer work they are currently doing is in the area of the proposed action or in an area where there is already proper clearance and approvals? I do not. Correct, the access construction would not be in the area of the proposed action but could easily be in the an area that prior authorization exists. That is what I was suggesting may be taking place. It is also what we do around here. We clean up and/or build access roads in areas we already have approval so that crews can reach the proposed action area.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 have never supposed the Feds can just build a road wherever they want. Like you, I have no idea where or what the current work is and if prior approvals have been granted. All I am proposing is perhaps we (the hunt talk crowd) should have a basic understanding of what and where they are doing before we decide if this is or is not the destruction of Bid Bend.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.
I don't necessarily disagree with this take. Much of this current Admin is rather poor at execution. Conversely, I don't think I am out of line by thinking that there is a lot of hyperbolic over-reaction to much of what this Admin does. Just proposing an alternative view before we get out the pitchforks.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.
We've done it when the area dictates. We like roads when possible.That's how I was working 20 years ago. lol
View attachment 414848