DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2012-0024-EA August 2012 Eldorado Valley Transmission and Utility Corridor Programmatic Environmental Assessment Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 702-515-5000 (office) 702-515-5010 (fax) This page intentionally left blank Draft Eldorado Valley Corridor Programmatic EA i Table of Contents 1. Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Identifying Information .......................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Title, EA Number, and Type of Project .................................................... 3 1.1.2 Location of Proposed Action ..................................................................... 3 1.1.3 Name of Location of Preparing Office ...................................................... 4 1.1.4 Case File Number ...................................................................................... 4 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................ 4 1.3 Purpose and Need for BLM Action ........................................................................ 5 1.4 Scope of the Analysis ............................................................................................. 6 1.5 Relationship to Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Other Plans ............................... 6 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives .......................................................... 9 2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 11 2.2 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................... 11 3. Affected Environment ............................................................................ 13 3.1 Proposed Project General Setting ......................................................................... 15 3.1.1 Resources Considered ............................................................................. 15 3.1.2 Resources or Uses Present and Brought Forward for Analysis ............... 16 3.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 17 3.2.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 20 3.3 Special Status Species .......................................................................................... 21 3.3.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 21 3.3.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 30 3.4 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................... 31 3.4.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 31 3.4.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 32 3.5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................. 32 3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 32 3.6 Vegetation and Non-Native Plant Species ........................................................... 34 3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 34 3.6.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 35 3.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 37 3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 37 3.7.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 40 3.8 Visual Resources .................................................................................................. 41 3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 41 3.8.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 54 3.9 Recreation ............................................................................................................. 55 3.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 56 3.9.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 57 3.10 Air Quality and Climate ....................................................................................... 58 3.10.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 58 3.10.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 62 August 2012 Table of Contents Draft Eldorado Valley Corridor Programmatic EA ii 3.11 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................ 63 3.11.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 63 3.11.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 70 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources .......................................................................... 70 3.12.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 70 3.12.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 72 3.13 Noise..................................................................................................................... 74 3.13.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 74 3.13.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 77 3.14 Fuels and Fire Management ................................................................................. 80 3.14.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 80 3.14.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 82 3.15 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 83 3.15.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 83 3.15.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 83 3.16 Human Health and Safety/Hazardous Materials .................................................. 85 3.16.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................. 85 3.16.2 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Standards ........................................ 88 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................................. 95 4.1 Overview of Development ................................................................................... 97 4.2 Land Use .............................................................................................................. 98 4.2.1 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 98 4.2.2 Best Management Practices..................................................................... 98 4.3 Special-status Species........................................................................................... 99 4.3.1 Environmental Consequences ................................................................. 99 4.3.2 Best management Practices ................................................................... 103 4.4 Migratory Birds .................................................................................................. 110 4.4.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 110 4.4.2 Best Management Practices................................................................... 112 4.5 Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 113 4.5.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 113 4.5.2 Best Management Practices................................................................... 114 4.6 Vegetation and Non-Native Plant Species ......................................................... 115 4.6.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 115 4.6.2 Best Management Practices................................................................... 116 4.7 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 117 4.7.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 117 4.7.2 Best Management Practices................................................................... 118 4.8 Visual Resources ................................................................................................ 123 4.8.1 Environmental Consequences ............................................................... 123 4.8.2 Best Management Practices..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plant Press the ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
    The Plant Press THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Volume 36, Number 1 Summer 2013 In this Issue: Plants of the Madrean Archipelago 1-4 Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Conference 5-8 Abstracts of Botanical Papers Presented in the Madrean Archipelago Conference Southwest Coralbean (Erythrina flabelliformis). Plus 11-19 Conservation Priority Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Setting for Arizona G1 Conference and G2 Plant Species: A Regional Assessment by Thomas R. Van Devender1. Photos courtesy the author. & Our Regular Features Today the term ‘bioblitz’ is popular, meaning an intensive effort in a short period to document the diversity of animals and plants in an area. The first bioblitz in the southwestern 2 President’s Note United States was the 1848-1855 survey of the new boundary between the United States and Mexico after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 ended the Mexican-American War. 8 Who’s Who at AZNPS The border between El Paso, Texas and the Colorado River in Arizona was surveyed in 1855- 9 & 17 Book Reviews 1856, following the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Besides surveying and marking the border with monuments, these were expeditions that made extensive animal and plant collections, 10 Spotlight on a Native often by U.S. Army physicians. Botanists John M. Bigelow (Charphochaete bigelovii), Charles Plant C. Parry (Agave parryi), Arthur C. V. Schott (Stephanomeria schotti), Edmund K. Smith (Rhamnus smithii), George Thurber (Stenocereus thurberi), and Charles Wright (Cheilanthes wrightii) made the first systematic plant collection in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. ©2013 Arizona Native Plant In 1892-94, Edgar A. Mearns collected 30,000 animal and plant specimens on the second Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus Agassizii) Genetic Connectivity
    University of Nevada, Reno Connecting the Plots: Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Genetic Connectivity A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Geography By Kirsten Erika Dutcher Dr. Jill S. Heaton, Dissertation Advisor May 2020 THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by KIRSTEN ERIKA DUTCHER entitled Connecting the Plots: Anthropogenic Disturbance and Mojave Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) Genetic Connectivity be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Jill S. Heaton, Ph.D. Advisor Kenneth E. Nussear, Ph.D. Committee Member Scott D. Bassett, Ph.D. Committee Member Amy G. Vandergast, Ph.D. Committee Member Marjorie D. Matocq, Ph.D. Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean Graduate School May, 2020 i ABSTRACT Habitat disturbance impedes connectivity for native populations by altering natural movement patterns, significantly increasing the risk of population decline. The Mojave Desert historically exhibited high ecological connectivity, but human presence has increased recently, as has habitat disturbance. Human land use primarily occurs in Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) habitat posing risks to the federally threatened species, which has declined as a result. As threats intensify, so does the need to protect tortoise habitat and connectivity. Functional corridors require appropriate habitat amounts and population densities, as individuals may need time to achieve connectivity and find mates. Developments in tortoise habitat have not been well studied, and understanding the relationship between barriers, corridors, population density, and gene flow is an important step towards species recovery.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV0S010-2009-1014-EA May 2016 Eastern Nevada Transmission Project APPLICANT Silver State Energy Association GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086357 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................2 1.4 Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................7 1.5 BLM Policies, Plans, Authorizing Actions, and Permit Requirements .........................7 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Regulatory Framework for Alternatives
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Solar Lease Revenues
    LIVE WORK PLAY RETIRE TURNING LAND INTO REVENUES: UNDERSTANDING SOLAR LEASE REVENUES Reprint Date: August 25, 2020 Mayor Kiernan McManus Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor pro tem Claudia Bridges Tracy Folda Judith A. Hoskins James Howard Adams City Manager Finance Director Alfonso Noyola, ICMA-CM Diane Pelletier, CPA Boulder City Revenue Overview Table of Contents Unlike most other municipalities and counties in Nevada, the revenue stream for Boulder City does not include the lucrative Some History . gaming tax. Prior to the recession of 2007 - 2009, the City’s • 4 • revenue stream did not have a sizable amount of monies from land leases. With the recent focus by California and more Charter/Ordinance Requirements recently at the national level on renewable energy development, • 4 • the City was in a key position to take advantage of its unique Land Lease Process position for solar development by leasing city-owned land for • 6 • energy production. Because of those prudent actions, today the Energy Lease Revenue History solar lease revenues equate to roughly 28% to 34% of the City’s • 7 • overall revenue stream to support vital governmental functions. Energy Lease Revenue Projections • • But is Land Lease Revenue Stable? 9 A common question posed to our City Council surrounds the Energy Lease Revenue Potential stability of land lease revenues. Traditional commercial or • 9 • residential land leases have many risks, as the tenants are Overall Energy Lease Revenue subject to market conditions or changes in employment. And History and Projections with recessions, these types of leases are common casualties • 10 • of a downturn in the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Transmission Plan
    2017-2018 TRANSMISSION PLAN March 14, 2018 REVISED DRAFT Foreword to Revised Draft 2017-2018 Transmission Plan This revised draft transmission plan reflects a number of changes from the draft plan released on February 1, 2018. To assist our stakeholders following the transmission plan cycle, we have summarized a number of those changes, with particular emphasis on a number of projects where the recommendations have progressed since the release on February 1 and the subsequent stakeholder meeting on February 8: • The model estimating the impact of the transmission plan on the ISO’s High Voltage TAC has been updated and the results added to the model. • The Oakland Clean Energy Initiative project is recommended for approval • The Phasor Measurement Unit project has been added and is recommended for approval • The Bridgerville-Garberville #2 115 kV line project is recommended to remain on hold. • The Kearney-Caruthers 70 kV Line Reonductor project is recommended to proceed with the original scope. • The recommended revised scope for the Kern 115 kV Area Reinfoement has been updated as presented at the February 8 stakeholder meeting. • Section 2.10 addressing the need for phasor measurement units to be installed on all ISO balancing authority area interties has been added. • Several projects approved in the 2016-2017 transmission planning cycle have been added to Table 7.1-1: Status of Previously-approved Projects Costing Less than $50M, that had been omitted from the table in the Draft 2017-2018 Transmission Plan. • The in-service date for a number of previously approved projects have been updated. A number of clarifications and edits have also been added throughout the plan to address other stakeholder comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Geological Association Publication 30.Pub
    Utah Geological Association Publication 30 - Pacific Section American Association of Petroleum Geologists Publication GB78 239 CENOZOIC EVOLUTION OF THE NORTHERN COLORADO RIVER EXTEN- SIONAL CORRIDOR, SOUTHERN NEVADA AND NORTHWEST ARIZONA JAMES E. FAULDS1, DANIEL L. FEUERBACH2*, CALVIN F. MILLER3, 4 AND EUGENE I. SMITH 1Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Mail Stop 178, Reno, NV 89557 2Department of Geology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 *Now at Exxon Mobil Development Company, 16825 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060 3Department of Geology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235 4Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV 89154 ABSTRACT The northern Colorado River extensional corridor is a 70- to 100-km-wide region of moderately to highly extended crust along the eastern margin of the Basin and Range province in southern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. It has occupied a criti- cal structural position in the western Cordillera since Mesozoic time. In the Cretaceous through early Tertiary, it stood just east and north of major fold and thrust belts and also marked the northern end of a broad, gently (~15o) north-plunging uplift (Kingman arch) that extended southeastward through much of central Arizona. Mesozoic and Paleozoic strata were stripped from the arch by northeast-flowing streams. Peraluminous 65 to 73 Ma granites were emplaced at depths of at least 10 km and exposed in the core of the arch by earliest Miocene time. Calc-alkaline magmatism swept northward through the northern Colorado River extensional corridor during early to middle Miocene time, beginning at ~22 Ma in the south and ~12 Ma in the north.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Rare Plant Advisory Group Sensitive Plant List -June 2014
    ARIZONA RARE PLANT ADVISORY GROUP SENSITIVE PLANT LIST -JUNE 2014 •.. -e 'I"': ~ ~ •.. ·s o 0 .g o rn u rn '•".. ..>: ::s ~ ~ ~ 0"' tU I': ~ ~ Z ..•.. ~ '" u ::... 0 ~ E 0 u -; •.. is '5 rn 0 0 ~ ;::l ~ "g u d iL< ..>: ~ 0 •.. ~ s •.... "B .. § 0 ; 0 ~ ~ U ~ il< < ~ E-< ~ VERY HIGH CONCERN Agave delamateri Hodgs. & Slauson Asparagaceae w.e L Tonto Basin Agave 7 7 7 c Asparagaceae Agave phillipsiana w.e Hodgs wand Canvon Centurv Plant 7 7 7 nc Aotragalus crt!mnophylax uar: crt!mnophylax Bameby Fabaceae Sentrv Milk-vetch 7 8 7.5 c AOfragalus holmgreniomm Bameby Fabaceae Holmgren (Paradox) Milk-vetch 7 7 7 c Orobanchaceae Castilleja mogollonica PeJ2lJell Mogollon Paintbrush 7 8 7.5 Lv c Apiaceae Eryngium sparganophyllum HemsL Ribbonleaf Button Snakeroot 6 8 7 v? nc Lotus meamsii var. equisolensis].L Anderson Fabaccae Horseshoe Deer Vetch 6 8 7 nc Cactaceae Pediacactus brat!Ji L Benson Brady Pincushion Cactus 7 7 7 c Boraginaceae Phacelia cronquistiana S.L Wel,.h Cronquist's Phacelia 7 8 7.5 nc PotClltil1a arizona Greene Rosaceae Arizone Cinquefoil 6 8 7 nc Sphaeralcea gierischii N.D. Atwood & S.L Welsh Malvaceae Gierisch globemallow 7 7 7 nc HIGH CONCERN Ranunculaceae Actaea arizonica (S. Watson) J. Compton Arizona Buzbane 6 6 6 c Agave murpheyi F. Gibson Asparagaeeae Hohokam Agave 6 6 6 c Asnaragaceae Agave yavapaiensis Yavapai Agave 6 7 6.5 ne Aletes macdougalli ssp. macdougaftiJM. Coulto & Rose Apiaceae MacDougal's Indian parsley 6 6 6 nc Alide/la cliffordii J.M. Potter Polernoniaceae Clifford's Gilia 5 7 6 nc Antic/ea vaginata Rydb.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Tracking List
    Nevada Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2021 The Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) A separate list, the Plant and Animal Watch List, systematically curates information on Nevada's contains taxa that could become at-risk in the future. endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare, and at-risk plants and animals providing the most comprehensive Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are source of information on Nevada’s imperiled organized by taxonomic group, and presented biodiversity. alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Currently, there are 639 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, Nevada's health and economic well-being depend 209 invertebrates, 65 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 27 birds, and 37 mammals. challenge increases as population and land-use pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top Documentation of population status, locations, or 10 states for both the diversity and the vulnerability of other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on its living heritage. With early planning and responsible this list are always welcome. Literature citations with development, economic growth and our biological taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are resources can coexist. NDNH is a central source for also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site information critical to achieving this balance. Survey Report form is available on our website under Management priorities for the state’s imperiled the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for biodiversity are continually assessed, providing submitting information to NDNH.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\A Projects\AAA IBLA Decs\066IBLA\L265-268.Wpd
    THOMAS CONNELLY ET AL. IBLA 81-344 Decided August 17, 1982 Appeal from decision of the Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management, rejecting in part oil and gas lease offer N-30806. Affirmed. 1. Oil and Gas Leases: Discretion to Lease The Secretary of the Interior may, in his discretion, reject any offer to lease public lands for oil and gas upon a determination, supported by facts of record, that the leasing would not be in the public interest because it is incompatible with uses of the lands which are worthy of preservation. APPEARANCES: C. M. Peterson, Esq., Denver, Colorado, for appellants. OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BURSKI Thomas H. Connelly and Robert W. David appeal from a January 15, 1981, decision of the Nevada State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), rejecting in part their oil and gas lease offer N-30806. BLM rejected the offer insofar as it concerned land in sec. 6: lots 8 and 9, S 1/2 NE 1/4, SE 1/4; sec. 7: E 1/2; sec. 18: E 1/2; and accepted the offer only as to sec. 28, all in T. 27 S., R. 63 E., Mount Diablo meridian, Clark County, Nevada. 1/ BLM listed the following reason for partial rejection: According to Stateline EAR of the Las Vegas District Office, these lands have been designated as part of the 'Highland Range Crucial Bighorn Habitat Area' (CFR 2071-1). Because these lands have been identified as crucial to the survival of a bighorn herd, they have been closed to oil, gas and geothermal exploration and leasing.
    [Show full text]