DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOE/EIS–0458D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY LOAN GUARANTEE TO ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND FOR CONSTRUCTION AND STARTUP OF THE TOPAZ SOLAR FARM SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA US Department of Energy, Lead Agency Loan Guarantee Program Office Washington, DC 20585 In Cooperation with US Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District March 2011 COVER SHEET Lead Federal Agency: US Department of Energy Cooperating Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers Title: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US Department of Energy Loan Guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland for Construction and Startup of the Topaz Solar Farm, San Luis Obispo County, California Contact: For additional copies or more information on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), please contact: Ms. Angela Colamaria US Department of Energy Loan Programs Office (LP-10) 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Phone: 202-287-5387 Electronic mail: [email protected] Abstract: The US Department of Energy is proposing to issue a loan guarantee to Royal Bank of Scotland to provide funding to Topaz Solar Farms, Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) to construct and start up the Topaz Solar Farm, a nominal 550-megawatt photovoltaic solar energy generating facility. The facility would be located in unincorporated eastern San Luis Obispo County, California, approximately one mile north of the community of California Valley and six miles northwest of the Carrizo Plain National Monument. The proposed facility would consist of a solar field of ground-mounted PV modules, an electrical collection system that converts generated power from direct current to alternating current and delivers it to a Project substation for collection and conversion from 34.5 to 230 kV for delivery via a new on-site Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) switching station, and the PG&E switching station that interconnects the Project to PG&E’s existing Morro Bay to Midway 230-kV transmission line. The facility would generate over one million megawatt-hours of electricity per year, enough to power 160,000 California homes annually. Generated electricity would be sold to PG&E under a long-term power purchase agreement. Comments: Comments on this Draft EIS may be sent to Ms. Colamaria at the address above or may be emailed to [email protected]. All electronic and written comments should reference DOE/EIS–0458D. Comments must be postmarked no later than 45 days from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s notice of availability of this Draft EIS in the Federal Register. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... S-1 1. PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Location and Overview ................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3.1 Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1-4 1.3.2 DOE Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 1-5 1.3.3 USACE Purpose and Need ............................................................................................. 1-5 1.4 Background........................................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.4.1 DOE Loan Guarantee Program Overview ................................................................. 1-7 1.4.2 County Permitting Overview ......................................................................................... 1-8 1.4.3 Interconnection and Power Purchase Agreements .................................................. 1-9 1.5 Scope of this Environmental Impact Statement ........................................................................ 1-9 1.6 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................ 1-10 1.6.1 Scoping .............................................................................................................................. 1-10 1.7 Document Organization .............................................................................................................. 1-13 2. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 DOE’s Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 DOE Selection of Alternatives ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Project-Specific Alternatives .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.4 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 2-12 2.2 USACE’s Proposed Action and Alternatives Considered ....................................................2-13 2.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 2-13 2.2.2 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................... 2-13 2.3 Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.3.1 PV Solar Energy Technology ........................................................................................2-14 2.3.2 Proposed Project Features ...........................................................................................2-14 2.3.3 PG&E Transmission System .........................................................................................2-27 2.3.4 Proposed Project Construction ..................................................................................2-32 2.3.5 Project Operation and Maintenance ..........................................................................2-41 2.3.6 Solar Project Decommissioning ..................................................................................2-44 2.3.7 Potential Permits and Authorizations ........................................................................2-44 2.3.8 Summary of Proposed Environmental Protection Measures ...............................2-47 2.4 Connected Action ......................................................................................................................... 2-55 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .......................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Impacts .................................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 3-4 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................3-11 3.3 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................................ 3-20 3.3.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-21 March 2011 Draft Environmental Impact Statement i DOE Loan Guarantee for the Topaz Solar Farm Table of Contents 3.3.2 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................3-26 3.4 Air Quality and Climate Change ................................................................................................ 3-44 3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-44 3.4.2 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................3-48 3.5 Noise ................................................................................................................................................ 3-56 3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 3-56 3.5.2 Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................3-63 3.6 Geology and Soils .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan
    FINALFINAL AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan Prepared for Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District November 2007 Todd Engineers with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants FINAL AB3030 Groundwater Management Plan Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District Kern County, California Prepared for: Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District 12109 Highway 166 Bakersfield, CA 93313 Prepared by: Todd Engineers 2200 Powell Street, Suite 225 Emeryville, CA 94608 with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 1000 Hill Road, Suite 200 Ventura, CA 93003-4455 November 2007 Table of Contents List of Tables....................................................................................................................... v List of Figures..................................................................................................................... v List of Appendices............................................................................................................... v Executive Summary...................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................1 1.1. Background......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Goals and Objectives of the Plan........................................................................ 2 1.3. Public Participation............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Environmental Analysis
    5. Environmental Analysis 5.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources include places, object, structures, and settlements that reflect group or individual religious, archaeological, architectural, or paleontological activities, or are considered important for their architectural or historical value. Such resources provide information on scientific progress, environmental adaptations, group ideology, or other human advancements. This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the San Marino High School Michael White Adobe project to impact cultural resources in the City of San Marino. The analysis in this section is based, in part, upon the following information: • Michael White Adobe Historic Resources Technical Report, Chattel Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, August 4, 2009. This study is included in Appendix D of this Draft EIR. 5.1.1 Regulatory Background National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Section 106 Review refers to the federal review process designed to ensure that historic properties are considered during federal project planning and implementation. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent federal agency, administers the review process, with assistance from State Historic Preservation Offices. National Register of Historic Resources (National Register) The National Register is the nation’s official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the country’s historic and archaeological resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Edison-Maricopa Area Kern County, California
    Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Edison-Maricopa Area Kern County, California By P. R. WOOD and R. H. DALE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1656 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Heater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for tbis publication appears on page following tbe index. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Abstract______________-_______----_-_._________________________ 1 Introduction._________________________________-----_------_-______ 3 The water probiem-________--------------------------------__- 3 Purpose of the investigation.___________________________________ 4 Scope and methods of study.___________________________________ 5 Location and general features of the area_________________________ 6 Previous investigations.________________________________________ 8 Acknowledgments. ____________________________________________ 9 Well-numbering system._______________________________________ 9 Geography ___________________________________________________ 11 Climate.__-________________-____-__------_-----_---_-_-_----_ 11 Physiography_..__________________-__-__-_-_-___-_---_-----_-_- 14 General features_________________________________________ 14 Sierra Nevada___________________________________________ 15 Tehachapi Mountains..---.________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain
    Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain BLM Chuck Graham Chuck Graham Agena Garnett-Ruskovich Advisory Panel Members: Paul Beier, Ph.D., Northern Arizona University Patrick Huber, Ph.D., University of California Davis Steve Kohlmann, Ph.D., Tierra Resource Management Bob Stafford, California Department of Fish and Game Brian Cypher, Ph.D., University of Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program also served as an Advisory Panel Member when this project was under the California Energy Commission’s jurisdiction. Preferred Citation: Penrod, K., W. Spencer, E. Rubin, and C. Paulman. April 2010. Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain. Prepared for County of San Luis Obsipo by SC Wildlands, http://www.scwildlands.org Habitat Connectivity Planning for Selected Focal Species in the Carrizo Plain Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. Introduction 2.1. Background and Project Need 3. Project Setting 3.1. The Study Area 3.1.1. Location 3.1.2. Physical Features 3.1.3. Biological Features 3.1.4. Human Features 3.2. The Proposed Energy Projects 3.2.1. Topaz Solar Farm 3.2.2. SunPower – California Valley Solar Ranch 4. The Focal Species 4.1. Pronghorn antelope 4.2. Tule elk 4.3. San Joaquin kit fox 5. Conservation Planning Approach 5.1. Modeling Baseline Conditions Of Habitat Suitability And Connectivity For Each Focal Species 5.1.1. Compilation And Refinement Of Digital Data Layers 5.1.2. Modeling Habitat Suitability 5.1.3. Modeling Landscape Permeability 5.1.4. Species-Specific Model Input Data And Conceptual Basis For Model Development 5.1.4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Names
    GEOGRAPHIC NAMES CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES ? REVISED TO JANUARY, 1911 WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1911 PREPARED FOR USE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE BY THE UNITED STATES GEOGRAPHIC BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1911 ) CORRECT ORTHOGRAPHY OF GEOGRAPHIC NAMES. The following list of geographic names includes all decisions on spelling rendered by the United States Geographic Board to and including December 7, 1910. Adopted forms are shown by bold-face type, rejected forms by italic, and revisions of previous decisions by an asterisk (*). Aalplaus ; see Alplaus. Acoma; township, McLeod County, Minn. Abagadasset; point, Kennebec River, Saga- (Not Aconia.) dahoc County, Me. (Not Abagadusset. AQores ; see Azores. Abatan; river, southwest part of Bohol, Acquasco; see Aquaseo. discharging into Maribojoc Bay. (Not Acquia; see Aquia. Abalan nor Abalon.) Acworth; railroad station and town, Cobb Aberjona; river, IVIiddlesex County, Mass. County, Ga. (Not Ackworth.) (Not Abbajona.) Adam; island, Chesapeake Bay, Dorchester Abino; point, in Canada, near east end of County, Md. (Not Adam's nor Adams.) Lake Erie. (Not Abineau nor Albino.) Adams; creek, Chatham County, Ga. (Not Aboite; railroad station, Allen County, Adams's.) Ind. (Not Aboit.) Adams; township. Warren County, Ind. AJjoo-shehr ; see Bushire. (Not J. Q. Adams.) Abookeer; AhouJcir; see Abukir. Adam's Creek; see Cunningham. Ahou Hamad; see Abu Hamed. Adams Fall; ledge in New Haven Harbor, Fall.) Abram ; creek in Grant and Mineral Coun- Conn. (Not Adam's ties, W. Va. (Not Abraham.) Adel; see Somali. Abram; see Shimmo. Adelina; town, Calvert County, Md. (Not Abruad ; see Riad. Adalina.) Absaroka; range of mountains in and near Aderhold; ferry over Chattahoochee River, Yellowstone National Park.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal IR for Geology
    FIG. 1. Index (nap showing major physiographic features and approximate location of areas described and illustrated in this report. EDWARDW. WOLFE* U.S. Geological Survey Flagstaff, Ariz. 86001 Thermal IR for Geology An evaluation for Caliente and Temblor Ranges in Southern California compares pre-dawn and post-dawn imagery and a conventional photograph. (Abstract on next page) in the Caliente Range, and unpublished maps by both T. W. Dibblee and G. Vedder HERMAL INFRARED IMAGERY, recording J. radiation from 8 to 13 micrometers in were used to evaluate the imagery in the T Temblor Range. wavelength, was flown by NASA on June 18, 1965, in the Carrizo Plain of southern Calif- Figure 2 is a generalized geologic map of ornia. A line approximately normal to the re- the area in which imagery was studied in gional geologic structure was selected for detail. The stratigraphic nomenclature used detailed analysis and is shown in Figure 1. A on the map and in this report is that of preliminary report on imagery from the Car- Dibblee (1962). Its use herein does not consti- rizo Plain was made by Wallace and Moxham tute adoption of the names by the U.S. (1966). A published geologic map by Vedder Geological Survey. and Repenning (1965) was extensively used In the image area the Caliente and Temblor Ranges are underlain by steeply dipping * Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. clastic rocks of late Tertiary age. In addi- Geological Survey. tion, three basalt flows occur within the Caliente Range sequence. The Caliente and Figure 5, an aerial photograph of the north- Temblor Ranges in the image area are largely eastern part of the imaged strip, was taken mantled by debris derived from the under- from about 35,000 feet on a midsummer day.
    [Show full text]
  • Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B
    Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany Volume 29 | Issue 1 Article 4 2011 Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa Alan B. Harper Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Sula Vanderplank Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, Claremont, California Mark Dodero Recon Environmental Inc., San Diego, California Sergio Mata Terra Peninsular, Coronado, California Jorge Ochoa Long Beach City College, Long Beach, California Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Botany Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Recommended Citation Harper, Alan B.; Vanderplank, Sula; Dodero, Mark; Mata, Sergio; and Ochoa, Jorge (2011) "Plants of the Colonet Region, Baja California, Mexico, and a Vegetation Map of Colonet Mesa," Aliso: A Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany: Vol. 29: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://scholarship.claremont.edu/aliso/vol29/iss1/4 Aliso, 29(1), pp. 25–42 ’ 2011, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden PLANTS OF THE COLONET REGION, BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO, AND A VEGETATION MAPOF COLONET MESA ALAN B. HARPER,1 SULA VANDERPLANK,2 MARK DODERO,3 SERGIO MATA,1 AND JORGE OCHOA4 1Terra Peninsular, A.C., PMB 189003, Suite 88, Coronado, California 92178, USA ([email protected]); 2Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, 1500 North College Avenue, Claremont, California 91711, USA; 3Recon Environmental Inc., 1927 Fifth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101, USA; 4Long Beach City College, 1305 East Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, California 90806, USA ABSTRACT The Colonet region is located at the southern end of the California Floristic Province, in an area known to have the highest plant diversity in Baja California.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Collections
    A. andersonii A. Gray SANTA CRUZ MANZANITA San Mateo Along Skyline Blvd. between Gulch Road and la Honda Rd. (A. regismontana?) Santa Cruz Along Empire Grade, about 2 miles north of its intersection with Alba Grade. Lat. N. 37° 07', Long. 122° 10' W. Altitude about 2550 feet. Santa Cruz Aong grade (summit) 0.8 mi nw Alba Road junction (2600 ft elev. above and nw of Ben Lomond (town)) - Empire Grade Santa Cruz Near Summit of Opal Creek Rd., Big Basin Redwood State Park. Santa Cruz Near intersection of Empire Grade and Alba Grade. ben Lomond Mountain. Santa Cruz Along China Grade, 0.2 miles NW of its intersection with the Big Basin-Saratoga Summit Rd. Santa Cruz Nisene Marks State Park, Aptos Creek watershed; under PG&E high-voltage transmission line on eastern rim of the creek canyon Santa Cruz Along Redwood Drive 1.5 miles up (north of) from Monte Toyon Santa Cruz Miller's Ranch, summit between Gilroy and Watsonville. Santa Cruz At junction of Alba Road and Empire Road Ben Lomond Ridge summit Santa Cruz Sandy ridges near Bonny Doon - Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz 3 miles NW of Santa Cruz, on upper UC Santa Cruz campus, Marshall Fields Santa Cruz Mt. Madonna Road along summit of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Between Lands End and Manzanitas School. Lat. N. 37° 02', Long. 121° 45' W; elev. 2000 feet Monterey Moro Road, Prunedale (A. pajaroensis?) A. auriculata Eastw. MT. DIABLO MANZANITA Contra Costa Between two major cuts of Cowell Cement Company (w face of ridge) - Mount Diablo, Lime Ridge Contra Costa Immediately south of Nortonville; 37°57'N, 121°53'W Contra Costa Top Pine Canyon Ridge (s-facing slope between the two forks) - Mount Diablo, Emmons Canyon (off Stone Valley) Contra Costa Near fire trail which runs s from large spur (on meridian) heading into Sycamore Canyon - Mount Diablo, Inner Black Hills Contra Costa Off Summit Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • San Rafael Wilderness, CA Air Program
    United States Department of Agriculture Visibility Data Summary: Forest Service San Rafael Wilderness, CA Air Program Contact: Trent Procter (559) 784-1500 Date: June 2013 Introduction About This Location Air pollution often has a subtle but critical impact on San Rafael Wilderness Area is a protected Class I Area ecosystems and vistas, and can alter ecosystems by located in the Los Padres National Forest in southern harming plants and animals, or changing soil or water California, as shown in Figure 2. chemistry. As a result, ecosystems then become more vulnerable to damage from insects and diseases, drought, or invasive species. Additionally, since many visitors to national forests value pristine areas with magnificent vistas, air pollution can spoil their experience and lessen their enjoyment of national forests. Background One of the most noticeable forms of air pollution is haze, a veil of smog-like pollution that can blur the view of many urban and rural areas. As part of the Clean Air Act, Congress has established a goal to prevent future and remedy existing visibility impairment in 156 protected national parks and wildernesses, known as Class I Areas. Figure 2: Location of San Rafael Wilderness Area Federal rules require state and federal agencies to work An IMPROVE monitor was established on Figueroa together to improve visibility in these areas so that natural Lookout in 2000 to assess visibility impairment at this background conditions are achieved by the year 2064. Class I Area. An analysis of the monitoring data indicates Figure 1 shows a visual representation using the model that sulfates are the largest contributor to visibility WinHaze of how that improvement would appear at the impairment, as shown in Figure 3 in units of light San Rafael Wilderness Area.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Incentives for Historic Preservation in California 2017
    15 ation v Series Series ecreation R Incentives arks & arks P of Historic Preser for Department of Department California Office Office California Technical Assistance Technical Historic Preservation 1725 23rd St, Suite 100 Sacramento CA 95816 PO Box 942896 Sacramento CA 94296-0001 Phone: (916) 445-7000 fax: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] Revised March 2017 www.ohp.parks.ca.gov INCENTIVES FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERIES #15 This publication has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibits unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, or handicap in its federally-assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to Office for Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, National· Park Service, Box 37127, Washington DC 20013-7127. © 2013 by the California Department of Parks and Recreation Office of Historic Preservation Sacramento, California All rights reserved 13 September 2013 Preface The programs listed in this document will assist anyone interested in the field of historic preservation to locate funding and incentives available to qualified historic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing on the San Rafael Swell National Conservation Area
    HEARING ON THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 3625, A BILL TO ESTABLISH THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA AND THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA IN THE STATE OF UTAH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES APRIL 23, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC Serial No. 105±85 Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 48±613 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 i VerDate 06-MAY-99 09:56 May 25, 1999 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\48613 txed02 PsN: txed02 COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELOÂ , Puerto WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina Rico WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam JOHN E.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 98-425 An
    PUBLIC LAW 98-425-SEPT. 28, 1984 98 STAT. 1619 Public Law 98-425 98th Congress An Act Sept. 28, 1984 Entitled the "California Wilderness Act of 1984". [H.R. 1437] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this title may California Wilderness Act be cited as the "California Wilderness Act of 1984". of 1984. National TITLE I Wilderness Preservation System. DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS National Forest System. SEC. 101. (a) In furtherance of the purposes of the Wilderness Act, National parks, the following lands, as generally depicted on maps, appropriately monuments, etc. referenced, dated July 1980 (except as otherwise dated) are hereby 16 USC 1131 designated as wilderness, and therefore, as components of the Na­ note. tional Wilderness Preservation System- (1)scertain lands in the Lassen National Forest, California,s which comprise approximately one thousand eight hundred acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Caribou Wilder­ ness Additions-Proposed", and which are hereby incorporated in, and which shall be deemed to be a part of the Caribou Wilderness as designated by Public Law 88-577; 16 USC 1131 (2)s certain lands in the Stanislaus and Toiyabe Nationals note. 16 USC 1132 Forests, California, which comprise approximately one hundred note. sixty thousand acres, as generally depicted on a map entitled "Carson-Iceberg Wilderness-Proposed", dated July 1984, and which shall be known as the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness: Pro­ vided, however, That the designation of the Carson-Iceberg Wil­ derness shall not preclude continued motorized access to those previously existing facilities which are directly related to per­ mitted livestock grazing activities in the Wolf Creek Drainage on the Toiyabe National Forest in the same manner and degree in which such access was occurring as of the date of enactment of this title; (3)scertain lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Cali­ 16 USC 1132 fornia, which comprise approximately seven thousand three note.
    [Show full text]