DOCSLIB.ORG

ALLEN FOSSIL PLANT EMISSION CONTROL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Shelby County, Tennessee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ALLEN FOSSIL PLANT EMISSION CONTROL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Shelby County, Tennessee Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final Environmental Assessment Project Name: Allen Fossil Plant Emission Control Project Project Number: 2013-33 ALLEN FOSSIL PLANT EMISSION CONTROL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Shelby County, Tennessee Prepared by: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Chattanooga, TN August 2014 To request further information, contact: Ashley R. Farless, PE, AICP NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: 423-751-2361 Fax: 423.751.7011 E-mail: [email protected] This page intentionally left blank Contents Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction and Background ................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Decision to be Made ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Summary of Proposed Action .................................................................................................. 2 1.4.1 Gas Plant Construction and Operation .............................................................................. 2 1.4.2 Gas Pipeline Construction and Operation ......................................................................... 4 1.4.3 Water Requirements .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4.4 Transmission System ........................................................................................................ 4 1.5 Related Environmental Reviews and Consultation Requirements .......................................... 6 1.6 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ................................................................................ 6 1.7 Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................................................... 7 1.8 Necessary Permits or Licenses ............................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Description of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Alternative A – No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 9 2.1.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) .................. 10 2.1.2.1 Retire ALF ................................................................................................................. 10 2.1.2.2 Components of the CT/CC Facility ........................................................................... 10 2.1.2.3 Construction Activities ............................................................................................... 17 2.2 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Discussion ........................................ 19 2.2.1 Alternative C – Emission Controls, Scrubbers ................................................................ 19 2.2.2 Alternative D – Retire ALF, Rely on Energy Efficiency ................................................... 23 2.2.3 Alternative E – Convert ALF to Natural Gas Fuel............................................................ 24 2.2.4 Alternative F – Retire ALF, Construct a Renewable Energy Source (Wind or Solar) .............................................................................................................................. 25 2.2.5 Alternative G – Retire ALF, Upgrade TVA’s Transmission System/Rely on Power Purchase Agreements ......................................................................................... 26 2.2.6 Alternative H – Convert ALF to Renewable Biomass Fuel .............................................. 26 2.2.7 Alternative Locations for Proposed CT/CC Plant ............................................................ 27 2.3 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 29 2.4 Identification of Mitigation Measures ...................................................................................... 29 2.5 The Preferred Alternative ....................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................................................. 33 3.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 33 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 33 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 33 3.1.2.1 Alternative A – No Action .......................................................................................... 33 3.1.2.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) ........... 34 3.2 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1.1 Southeastern United States ...................................................................................... 37 3.2.1.2 Greenhouse Gases ................................................................................................... 37 3.2.1.3 Greenhouse Gases and Electric Utilities .................................................................. 38 3.2.1.4 Biogas ....................................................................................................................... 38 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 39 Final Environmental Assessment i Allen Fossil Plant Emission Control Project 3.2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action .......................................................................................... 39 3.2.2.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) ........... 39 3.3 Land Use ................................................................................................................................ 42 3.3.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 42 3.3.1.1 Proposed CT/CC Facility .......................................................................................... 42 3.3.1.2 Natural Gas Pipeline ................................................................................................. 43 3.4 Prime Farmland ...................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 47 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 47 3.4.2.1 Alternative A – No Action .......................................................................................... 47 3.4.2.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) ........... 48 3.5 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 48 3.5.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 48 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 49 3.5.2.1 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) ........... 49 3.6 Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 49 3.6.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 49 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 50 3.6.2.1 Alternative A – No Action .......................................................................................... 50 3.6.2.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC) ........... 50 3.7 Aquatic Ecology ..................................................................................................................... 51 3.7.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 51 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences......................................................................................... 53 3.7.2.1 No Action Alternative................................................................................................. 53 3.7.2.2 Alternative B – Retire ALF, Construct a Natural Gas-Fired Facility (CT/CC)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • I Am a Unit Operator at Paradise Fossil Plant in Drakesboro, Kentucky. I Started My Career with TVA in 2011 As a Student, and Became an Assistant Unit Operator (AUO)
    From: Board of Directors To: Pilakowski,Ashley Anne Cc: Campbell, Laura J; Tudor, AndrewJ; Hydas,James Hunter Subject: FW: ParadiseFossilPlant Date: Monday,December10,2018 4:56:39 PM From: Durbin, John Everett <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 7:38 PM To: Board of Directors <[email protected]> Subject: Paradise Fossil Plant Dear TVA Board of Directors, I am a Unit Operator at Paradise Fossil Plant in Drakesboro, Kentucky. I started my career with TVA in 2011 as a student, and became an assistant unit operator (AUO). I spent 6 years as an AUO at Paradise, and during that time, I achieved my operator accreditation. When the decision was made to shut down Paradise Units 1 & 2, my career path and thoughts of being able to retire from TVA someday were wiped away. I ended up being transferred from Paradise during the “surplus to fill” process that was initiated when the 2 units at Paradise ceased operation (April 2017). I was sent to Allen Fossil Plant, which was also slated to be shutdown, to be a control room operator there until the plant ceased to operate. I lived in a hotel away from my wife and children for 12 months as I operated the Allen Fossil Plant until it was taken offline for the last time. At that point, I was being transferred to Kingston Fossil Plant, but received an 11th hour reprieve when I was chosen to come back to Paradise as an operator, a position to which I had applied. I returned home in May of 2018, and was hoping to be home for good.
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Combustion Residual Impoundments Dam Assessment
    FINAL Coal Combustion Residue Impoundment Round 11 - Dam Assessment Report Allen Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Memphis, Tennessee Prepared for: United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Prepared by: Dewberry Consultants LLC Fairfax, Virginia Under Contract Number: EP-09W001727 February 2013 FINAL INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The release of over five million cubic yards of coal combustion residue from the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston, Tennessee facility in December 2008, which flooded more than 300 acres of land and damaged homes and property, is a wake-up call for diligence on coal combustion residue disposal units. A first step toward this goal is to assess the stability and functionality of the ash impoundments and other units, then quickly take any needed corrective measures. This assessment of the stability and functionality of the Allen Fossil Plant coal combustion residue management units is based on a review of available documents and on the site assessment conducted by Dewberry personnel on September 19, 2011. We found the supporting technical documentation to be generally adequate, although there is some deficiency (Section 1.1.3). As detailed in Section 1.2.5, there are 5 minor recommendations based on field observations that may help to maintain a safe and trouble-free operation. In summary, the Allen Fossil Plant CCR management unit, East Ash Pond, is SATISFACTORY for continued safe and reliable operation. The rating reflects studies performed by TVA in 2012. Specifically, in a letter report dated October 11, 2012, TVA provided seismic stability results that showed the East Ash Pond dikes met minimum required safety factors.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Evaluation of the Hydrogeology and Groundwater
    Prepared for the Tennessee Valley Authority in cooperation with the University of Memphis, Center for Applied Earth Science and Engineering Research Preliminary Evaluation of the Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer and Memphis Aquifer at the Tennessee Valley Authority Allen Power Plants, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee Open-File Report 2018–1097 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Groundwater discharge from an aquifer test at the Tennessee Valley Authority Allen Combined Cycle Plant in Memphis, Tennessee, October 3–4, 2017. Preliminary Evaluation of the Hydrogeology and Groundwater Quality of the Mississippi River Valley Alluvial Aquifer and Memphis Aquifer at the Tennessee Valley Authority Allen Power Plants, Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee By John K. Carmichael, James A. Kingsbury, Daniel Larsen, and Scott Schoefernacker Prepared for the Tennessee Valley Authority in cooperation with the University of Memphis, Center for Applied Earth Science and Engineering Research Open-File Report 2018–1097 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Historic Preservation Plan Was Written in 2009
    NORTH DAKOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH DAKOTA 612 EAST BOULEVARD AVENUE BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 58505-0830 PRESERVATION IN NORTH DAKOTA, 2016-2021: A Statewide Comprehensive Plan PRESERVATION IN NORTH DAKOTA, 2016-2021: Telephone: (701) 328-2672 FAX: (701) 328-3710 http://history.nd.gov HISTORIC December 2015 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The preparation of this plan revision was a group effort. Research, discussion, writing and reviews were performed primarily by the staff of the State Historic Preservation Office, sitting as an ad hoc planning committee and by other individuals from the staff of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, each bringing his or her own perspective, expertise, experience and philosophical viewpoints, to help formulate a comprehensive yet balanced preservation concept. Preservation constituents and respondents from the general public gave time and generously contributed ideas, evaluations, suggestions, concerns, and assessments. To each and all of these sincere gratitude is offered, as it is to previous staff and public participants whose contributions to earlier planning studies and efforts were of great value to the development of this plan. This document may be provided in other communication formats. If special format copies are desired, please contact: The Division of Archaeology and Historic Preservation State Historical Society of North Dakota 612 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, North Dakota 58505 Telephone: (701) 328-2672 Fax: (701) 328-3710 http://history.nd.gov The State Historical Society of North Dakota receives federal funds from the U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, to assist with costs of administering the Historic Preservation program in this state.
    [Show full text]
  • Knife River Flint Distribution and Identification in Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2016 Knife River Flint Distribution and Identification in Montana Laura Evilsizer University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Indigenous Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Evilsizer, Laura, "Knife River Flint Distribution and Identification in Montana" (2016). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 10670. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/10670 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. KNIFE RIVER FLINT DISTRIBUTION AND IDENTIFICATION IN MONTANA By Laura Jean Evilsizer B.A. Anthropology, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA, 2011 Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology, Cultural Heritage University of Montana Missoula, MT May, 2016 Approved By: Scott Wittenburg, Dean of The Graduate School Graduate School Dr. Douglas H. MacDonald, Chair Department of Anthropology Dr. John Douglas Department of Anthropology Dr. Julie A.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Date 06/10/2021 14:34:02
    Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Monograph) Item Type Monograph Authors Stoffle, Richard W.; Halmo, David; Olmsted, John; Evans, Michael Publisher Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Download date 06/10/2021 14:34:02 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/271453 Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada Richard W. Stoffle David B. Halmo John E. Olmsted Michael J. Evans The Research Report Series of the Institute for Social Research is composed of significant reports published at the completion of a research project. These reports are generally prepared by the principal research investigators and are directed to selected users of this information. Research Reports are intended as technical documents which provide rapid dissemination of new knowledge resulting from ISR research. Native American Cultural Resource Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada Richard W. Stoffle David B. Halmo John E. Olmsted Michael J. Evans Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 1990 This volume was originally prepared for Science Applications International Corporation of Las Vegas, Nevada (work performed under Contract No. DE- AC08- 87NV10576). Disclaimer: This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Department of Energy, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, mark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Unites States Government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • TVA 2011 Environmental Impact Statement for TVA's Integrated
    Environmental Impact Statement for TVA’s Integrated Resource Plan TVA’s Environmental & Energy Future March 2011 | Volume 1 Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2881 EIS_cover_REV2.indd 1 2/25/11 12:37 PM Integrated Resource Plan Document Type: EIS-Administrative Record Index Field: Final Environmental Impact Statement Project Name: Integrated Resource Plan Project Number: 2009-19 Environmental Impact Statement March 2011 Proposed action: Integrated Resource Plan Lead agency: Tennessee Valley Authority For further information on the EIS, For further information on the project, contact: contact: Charles P. Nicholson Randall E. Johnson National Environmental Policy Act Manager Integrated Resource Plan Project Manager Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D 1101 Market St., EB 8D Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Chattanooga, TN 47402 Phone: 865-632-3582 Phone: 423 751-3520 Fax: 865-632-3451 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) proposes to adopt a new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) to determine how it will meet the electrical needs of its customers over the next 20 years and fulfill its mission of low-cost, reliable power, environment, and economic development. Planning process steps include: 1) determining the future need for power; 2) identifying potential supply-side options for generating power and demand-side options for reducing the need for power; 3) developing a range of planning strategies encompassing various approaches TVA can take on issues such as the amount of renewable generation, amount of demand-side reductions, and constraints on future coal-fired and nuclear generation; and 4) identifying a range of future conditions (scenarios) used in evaluating the strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nochta Site: the Early^ Middle^ and Late Archaic Occupations
    The Nochta Site: The Early^ Middle^ and Late Archaic Occupations Michael J. Higgins with contributions by Andrew C. Fortier, Douglas K. Jackson, Kathryn E. Parker, and Mary Simon American Bottom Archaeology FAI-270 Site Reports AMERICAN BOTTOM ARCHAEOLOGY FAI-270 Site Reports Edited by Walthall Charles J. Bareis and James A. regions This multi-volume series on one of the-most significant archaeological Administration and in North America is co-sponsored by the Federal Highway report on excavation the Illinois Department of Transportation. The volumes floodplain of sites affected by the construction of Interstate Highway 270 on the across the of the Mississippi River in Monroe, St. Clair, and Madison counties river from St. Louis. of the anthropology department at the University Charles J. Bareis is a member Archaeologist of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and John A. Walthall is Chief actively involved for the Illinois Department of Transportation. Both have been in the excavations of the American Bottom. Volumes Now Available 1. The East St. Louis Stone Quarry Site Cemetery George R. Milner 2. The Florence Street Site K. Thomas E. Emerson, George R. Milner, and Douglas Jackson 3. The Missouri Pacific #2 Site Dale L. McElrath and Andrew C. Fortier 4. The Turner and DeMange Sites George R. Milner 5. The Mund Site Andrew C. Fortier, Fred A. Finney, and Richard B. Lacampagne 6. The BBB Motor Site Thomas E. Emerson and Douglas K. Jackson 7. The Julien Site George R. Milner 8. The Fish Lake Site Andrew C. Fortier, Richard B. Lacampagne, and Fred A. Finney 9. The Go-Kart North Site and The Dyroff and Levin Sites Andrew C.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Estimated Mercury Emissions from Coal-Burning Power Plants
    Tennessee estimated mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. Estimated* Estimated** Total Mercury Mercury Released Air Pollution Plant Parent Company City 1998 (pounds) 1998 (pounds) Kingston Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Harriman, TN 840 525 Johnsonville Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority New Johnsonville, 801 506 Cumberland Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland City, TN 1,352 491 Gallatin Fossil Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin, TN 634 396 Bull Run Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Clinton, TN 496 310 John Sevier Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Rogersville, TN 300 187 Allen Fossil Plant‡ Tennessee Valley Authority Memphis, TN 204 129 State Total 4,630 2,548 * Estimated coal in mercury is calculated using plant specific coal contamination and coal consumption data. Release includes disposal in ponds and landfills as well as reuse applications such as fertilizer. ** Total stack emissions are calculated by applying total mercury released to plant specific emission modification factors. See Appendix A. ‡ Indicates plants that are under investigation by either U.S. EPA/Department of Justice or the State of New York Attorney General's Office for violations of the Clean Air Act. NRDC and a coalition of midwest groups have also served notice on many of these plants. N/A - Plants listed with N/A released mercury into the environment, however, insufficient data precludes estimation of mercury emissions from these plants. Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency databases. Plant ownership is attributed to the parent company of the plant operator as of January 1, 1999. The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Fossil Plants
    FOSSIL INTERNAL TVA UPS/ FED EX/ ETC. USPS ADDRESSES ADDRESSES TVA ALLEN FOSSIL PLANT ASP 1A-MET SAME 2574 PLANT RD MEMPHIS, TN 38109-3014 BROWNSVILLE COMBUSTION TURBINES BCT 1A-BVT SAME 948 BEECH GROVE ROAD BROWNSVILLE, TN 38012 TVA BULL RUN FOSSIL PLANT BRF 1A-CTT SAME 1265 EDGEMOOR RD CLINTON, TN 37716-6270 CALEDONIA COMBINED CYCLE PLANT CCC 1A-SNM SAME 255 LONE OAK ROAD SEENS, MS 39766 TVA COLBERT FOSSIL PLANT COL 1A-TSA SAME 900 COLBERT STEAM PLANT RD TUSCUMBIA, AL 35674-6905 TVA CUMBERLAND FOSSIL PLANT CUF 1A-CCT TVA CUMBERLAND FOSSIL PLANT PO BOX 2000 815 CUMBERLAND CITY RD CUMBERLAND CITY, TN 37050-2000 CUMBERLAND CITY, TN 37050 GALLATIN COMBUSTION TURBINE GROUP GFP 1B-GLT SAME 1471 STEAM PLANT ROAD GALLATIN TN 37066 TVA GALLATIN FOSSIL PLANT GFP 1A-GLT SAME 1499 STEAM PLANT RD GALLATIN, TN 37066-8714 TVA GLEASON COMBUSTION TURBINES GCC 1A-GST SAME 1166 JANES MILL ROAD GLEASON, TN 38229 TVA KEMPER COMUSTION TURBINES KCT 1A-DKM SAME 1363 MARK COBB ROAD DEKALB, MS 39328 TVA JOHN SEVIER COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT JSF 2A-RGT SAME 611-A HWY 70 SOUTH ROGERSVILLE, TN 37857 TVA JOHN SEVIER FOSSIL PLANT JSF 1A-RGT SAME 611 OLD HWY 70 S ROGERSVILLE, TN 37857-5401 TVA JOHNSONVILLE FOSSIL PLANT JOF 1A-NJT SAME 535 STEAM PLANT RD NEW JOHNSONVILLE, TN 37134-9685 TVA KINGSTON FOSSIL PLANT KFP 1A-KST SAME 714 SWAN POND RD HARRIMAN, TN 37748-8327 TVA LAGOON CREEK COMBINED CYCLE PLANT LCC 1A –BVT SAME 2585 HUDSON LANE BROWNSVILLE TN 38012 TVA LAGOON CREEK COMBUSTION TURBINE PLT LCP 1A-BVT SAME 615 ELM TREE RD BROWNSVILLE, TN 38012-6321 TVA MAGNOLIA
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment, Bandelier National Monument
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Bandelier National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BAND/NRR—2015/1000 ON THIS PAGE View of Upper Alamo Canyon, 2009 Photography by: National Park Service ON THE COVER View across Burnt Mesa, Bandelier National Monument Photography by: Dale Coker Bandelier National Monument Natural Resource Condition Assessment Natural Resource Report NPS/BAND/NRR—2015/1000 Editors Brian Jacobs1 Barbara Judy1 Stephen Fettig1 Kay Beeley1 Collin Haffey2 Catherin Schwemm3 Jean Palumbo4 Lisa Thomas4 1Bandelier National Monument 15 Entrance Road Los Alamos, NM 87544 2 Jemez Mountain Field Station, USGS at Bandelier National Monument 15 Entrance Road Los Alamos, NM 87544 3Institute for Wildlife Studies P.O. Box 1104 Arcata, CA 955184 4Southern Colorado Plateau Network National Park Service USGS Flagstaff Science Center 2255N. Gemini Drive Flagstaff, AZ 86001 August 2015 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science offi ce in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and oth- ers in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision- making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0Purpose of and Need for Action
    TABLE OF CONTENTS (Page 1 of 2) 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2.1 North Dakota CREP History ...................................................................... 2 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................... 3 1.4 Regulatory Compliance ........................................................................................ 6 1.5 Organization of the EA ......................................................................................... 7 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................... 8 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................... 8 2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ........................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Objectives .................................................................................................. 8 2.2.2 Eligible Land .............................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Proposed Conservation Practices ........................................................... 10 2.2.4 Financial Support to Land Owners
    [Show full text]