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 Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2010-0091-EA November 2014 Southern Nevada Intertie Project APPLICANT Great Basin Transmission, LLC GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086359 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Identifying Information ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.1. Title, EA Number, and Type of Project .............................................. 1-2 1.1.2. Location of Proposed Action ............................................................... 1-2 1.1.3. Name and Location of Preparing Office ............................................. 1-2 1.1.4. Identify the Case File Number ............................................................ 1-2 1.1.5. Applicant Name ................................................................................... 1-2 1.2. Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................. 1-2 1.2.1. Background ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2. BLM Purpose and Need ...................................................................... 1-3 1.2.3. Reclamation Purpose and Need ........................................................... 1-3 1.3. Decisions to be Made ......................................................................................... 1-3 1.4. BLM and Reclamation Policies, Plans, Authorizing Actions, and Permit Requirements ...................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.1. BLM .................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4.2. Reclamation ......................................................................................... 1-5 1.4.3. NEPA Regulations and Guidance ....................................................... 1-5 1.4.4. Indian Trust Assets .............................................................................. 1-7 1.4.5. Indian Sacred Sites .............................................................................. 1-7 Chapter 2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ....................................................................... 2-1 2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2. No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.3. Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4. Alternative 1 – Using 18 Miles of Open Position on the Existing Harry Allen to Mead Double-circuit Structures ........................................................... 2-2 2.5. River Mountains Alternative Routing Area ....................................................... 2-7 2.6. Dutchman Pass Alternative Routing Area .......................................................... 2-7 2.7. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ............................................................. 2-7 2.7.1. Crystal Substation Alternative Routing Area ...................................... 2-7 2.7.2. Alternative Paralleling the Northern 5 Miles of the Harry Allen to Mead 500 kV Line ............................................................................... 2-8 2.7.3. Southwest Intertie Project Interconnection Alternative ...................... 2-8 2.7.4. Mead Substation Alternative ............................................................... 2-8 2.8. Project Elements Common to the Proposed Action and All Action Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 2-8 2.8.1. Facilities Associated with the Proposed Project and Action Alternatives ......................................................................................... 2-8 2.8.2. Construction ...................................................................................... 2-17 2.8.3. Operation and Maintenance ............................................................... 2-24 2.8.4. Termination and Restoration ............................................................. 2-25 Chapter 3. Affected Resources .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1. Air Quality .......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1. Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 3-2 Table of Contents i N-086359 SNIP Environmental Assessment November 2014 3.1.2. Regulatory Framework ........................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3. Ambient Air Quality Standards and Pollutants of Concern ................ 3-2 3.2. Geology and Minerals ........................................................................................ 3-3 3.2.1. Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 3-3 3.2.2. Mineral Resources ............................................................................... 3-4 3.3. Soils .................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4. Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-5 3.4.1. Surface Water ...................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.2. Groundwater ........................................................................................ 3-6 3.5. Vegetation .......................................................................................................... 3-6 3.5.1. Environmental Setting ......................................................................... 3-6 3.5.2. Botanical Inventory Methods .............................................................. 3-9 3.5.3. Botanical Inventory Results ................................................................ 3-9 3.6. Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds .............................................................. 3-16 3.7. ESA-listed and Candidate Plant Species .......................................................... 3-16 3.8. Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 3-17 3.8.1. Mammals ........................................................................................... 3-19 3.8.2. Birds .................................................................................................. 3-20 3.8.3. Reptiles and Amphibians ................................................................... 3-22 3.9. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species ................ 3-22 3.9.1. Inventory Methods for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species ............................................................... 3-22 3.9.2. Inventory Results for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Wildlife Species ............................................................... 3-23 3.10. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 3-28 3.10.1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 3-28 3.10.2. Definition of the Area of Potential Effect ......................................... 3-29 3.10.3. Affected Environment ....................................................................... 3-29 3.11. Paleontological Resources ................................................................................ 3-32 3.12. Land Use, Recreation, and Access ................................................................... 3-34 3.12.1. Environmental Setting and Methodology .......................................... 3-34 3.12.2. Land Ownership and Jurisdiction ...................................................... 3-34 3.12.3. Special Management Areas ............................................................... 3-36 3.12.4. Existing Land Use ............................................................................. 3-37 3.12.5. Recreation .......................................................................................... 3-37 3.12.6. Planned and Future Land Use ........................................................... 3-38 3.13. Visual Resources .............................................................................................. 3-40 3.13.1. Environmental Setting ....................................................................... 3-40 3.13.2. Project-Level Inventory ..................................................................... 3-41 3.13.3. Planning-Level Inventory (BLM VRI) .............................................. 3-43 3.14. Socioeconomics ................................................................................................ 3-44 3.14.1. Demographics ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustainable Guide to Surfing CONTENTS
    Sustainable Guide To Surfing CONTENTS 1 IntroductIon 03 1.1 What is sustainability? 08 1.2 What is wrong with the planet 08 1.3 How will it affect us as surfers? 12 1.4 Measuring our effect on the planet 17 2 EnErGY 19 2.1 Where does it come from and where does it go? 20 2.2 Energy: what to do? 24 3 TRAVEL 29 3.1 driving 30 3.2 Flying 33 3.3 Travelling: what to do 35 4 STUFF 44 4.1 the life cycle of stuff 45 4.2 Surfwear, marketing and the media 52 4.3 Surfboards 54 4.4 Wetsuits 57 4.5 other surfing gear 59 4.6 Stuff: what to do 61 5 concLusion 69 6 Further ReadInG (And viewinG) 71 7 ReferEnces 72 Thanks to: 1 INTRODUCTION the following two alternatives were written in 1972, in a u.K. magazine called Surf Insight. It’s a beautiful day – the sun clear and strong – sky absolute blue and the air fresh on your nostrils. You wake to a bowl of fresh fruit and two huge farm 1 eggs, grab your board and walk through green, dewy fields to your favourite surf spot. Not another being in sight except for the animals and birds going about their morning’s business. The beach is pure and inviting – you dig your toes into golden sand… It’s a beautiful day? – the sun weak – half obliterated by a perfect morning smog, the sky greyish-blue and the air smarting in your nostrils and choking your lungs… You gasp for another deep breath of sweet industrial smog – a yummy bowl of plastic Krunchy Pops with pasteurized milk and two battery- hen eggs you can hardly taste gobbled down with relish before the long walk through a concrete jungle to your favourite surf spot.
    [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]
  • Big Springs Ethnographic Assessment
    Pah ¡chi (From Big Spring Running Down) ig Springs Ethnographic Assessment US -J5 Corridor Study OURCE GROUP REPORT NO. 34 Prepared by: Nevada ` Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Services and Federal Highway Administration Environmental Consultants: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada September 1998 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Pah hu wichi(From Big Spring Running Down): Big Spring Ethnographic Assessment US 95 Corridor Study September 1998 BUREAU OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables v List of Figures vii Acknowledgments vii Foreword x Chapter One Study Overview 1 Brief Description of the Project 1 Cultural Affiliation and Involved American Indian Tribes 2 The Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology 3 Native American Cultural Resource Revitalization 3 University of Arizona Study Team 4 Selection of Interview Sites 5 Interview Forms and Analysis 10 Data Analysis 10 Chronology of Work 13 Daily Schedule 13 Chapter Two Contextualizing Indian Opinions 15 Paiute Views of Their Culture 15 Creation Stories 18 Traditional Southern Paiute Political Units 20 The High Chiefs 20 Chiefs of Alliance 21 Disease and Sociopolitical Disruption 22 1840 - 1875 Depopulation 24 1875 -1900 Depopulation 24 Twentieth Century High Chiefs 26 Chief Tecopa 26 Continuities in Southern Paiute Political Leadership 26 Chief Penance 26 Chief Skinner 27 Technical Terms 28 Technical Term #1: Cultural Affiliation 28 Traditional Period 28 Aboriginal Period 29 Historic Period 29 Ownership of Land 30 Response
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 5.0 Cumulative Impacts
    TransWest Express EIS Chapter 5.0 – Cumulative Impacts 5-1 5.0 Cumulative Impacts NEPA requires an assessment of potential cumulative impacts. Federal regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) define cumulative impacts as: “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” The same resources evaluated for Project effects (Chapter 3.0) are evaluated for cumulative effects. The cumulative impact discussion assumes that all environmental mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 3.0 would be applied to the Project and that similar measures would be applied to other reasonably foreseeable transmission lines proposed on federal lands in the same alternative corridors. It also is assumed that these and any other projects on federal lands would comply with the applicable BLM Land Use Plans and Forest Service Forest Plans, as well as applicable federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements. The structure and content of the cumulative impacts analysis in this EIS follows the guidance contained in the BLM NEPA handbook (BLM 2008) and the CEQ Guidance on Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Policy Act (CEQ 1997). 5.1 Physical and Temporal Boundaries of Cumulative Impacts In general, physical boundaries for cumulative impacts analysis varied by resource and were identical to those analysis areas used in Chapter 3.0 to determine the context of Project impacts.
    [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]
  • Revised Draft 2014-2015 Transmission Plan This Revised Draft Transmission Plan Reflects a Number of Changes from the Draft Plan Released on February 2, 2015
    Forward to the Revised Draft 2014-2015 Transmission Plan This revised draft transmission plan reflects a number of changes from the draft plan released on February 2, 2015. To assist our stakeholders following the transmission plan cycle, we have summarized a number of those changes: 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 ISO has confirmed with Duke American Transmission Company that DATC’s request window submission for the San Luis Transmission Project was sent, but not received on the original request window submission timeline. It has subsequently been resent and received by the ISO. Accordingly, the plan has been revised to incorporate the review of the to the request window submission. A number of clarifications and edits have been added throughout the plan to address other stakeholder comments. 2014-2015 ISO Transmission Plan March 19, 2015 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 The Transmission Planning Process ................................................................ 3 Collaborative Planning Efforts .......................................................................... 4 Advancing Preferred Resources ....................................................................... 6 Reliability Assessment
    [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]
  • 2021-2022 Block 4 Schedule
    Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University 2021-2022 Block 4 Schedule ECC Approved 06.23.2021 (Updated 07.12.2021) Required attendance sessions are highlighted in red. INDIVIDUAL COURSE SYLLABI TAKE PRECEDENCE OF THIS SCHEDULE FOR ATTENDANCE POLICIES. STUDENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING AWARE OF AND ADHERING TO ALL SYLLABUS-LISTED POLICIES. Students are expected to be available 8:00 am-5:00 pm, Monday through Friday The schedule is subject to change in the event of emergencies Ignore room numbers listed on virtual sessions Yellow highlights indicate Path lab sessions which are splitting with certain Psych sessions Block 4 – Week 1 ver 14 07/12/2021 SYST 9100 HEMATOLOGY AND RENAL Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 08-02-21 08-03-21 08-04-21 08-05-21 08-06-21 8:00 8:00-8:50 2S04 8:00-8:50 2S04 8:00-8:50 2S04 8:00-8:50 2S04 CLINAPP 1 PATH 3 CLINAPP 2 PATH 7 Block 4 Intro; Clinical Hematology Hematology Hematology 8:30 Reasoning RBC: Anemia - Anemia CASES WBC: Lymphomas Destruction 2 9:00 9:00-9:50 2S04 9:00-9:50 2S04 9:00-9:50 2S04 9:00-9:50 2S04 PATH 1 PATH 4 PATH 5 CLINAPP 3 ORIENTATION Hematology Hematology Hematology Hematology 9:30 RBC: Hematopoiesis; RBC: Anemia - Production WBC: Overview; Tools for White Cell Disorders Hemoglobin; Tools for Deficits Diagnosis; Reactive WBC CASES evaluation Proliferation 10:00 10:00-10:50 2S04 10:00-11:30 10:00-10:50 2S04 10:00-10:50 2S04 PATH 2 Ethics 9 PATH 6 PATH 8 Hematology 2S04, 2E100 Hematology Hematology RBC: Anemia - WBC: Hematology WBC: Myeloproliferative 10:30 Destruction 1 Neoplasms Overview; and Myelodysplastic Leukemia Disease; Plasma cell Disease 11:00 11:00-11:50 2S04 11:00-12:20 2S04 11:00-11:50 2S04 Psych 1 FoD2 2 Psych 2 11:50-12:40 2S04 Overview Value-Based Care Flipped Classroom.
    [Show full text]
  • Tenth Biennial Electric Transmission Final Assessment Report
    FINAL DRAFT Tenth Biennial Transmission Assessment 2018-2027 Staff Report Docket No. E-00000D-17-0001 December 31, 2018 Prepared by Arizona Corporation Commission Staff And ESTA International, LLC 2214 Rock Hill Road, Suite 180 Herndon, Virginia, 20170-4234 Decision No. 76975 [This page intentionally blank for formatting purposes] Biennial Transmission Assessment for 2018-2027 Docket No. E-00000D-17-0001 December 31, 2018 Decision No. 76975 Foreword The Arizona Corporation Commission (“ACC” or “Commission”) performs a biennial review of the ten-year transmission plans filed by parties who are responsible for transmission facilities in Arizona and issues a written decision regarding the adequacy of the existing and planned transmission facilities to reliably meet the present and future transmission system needs of Arizona.1 This report by the Staff of the Commission’s Utilities Division (“ACC Staff” or “Staff”) is the Tenth Biennial Transmission Assessment (“BTA” or “Tenth BTA”) and has been prepared in accordance with a contract agreement between ESTA International, LLC (“ESTA”) and the Commission. It is considered a public document. Use of the report by other parties shall be at their own risk. Neither ESTA nor the Commission accept any duty of care to such third parties. Arizona’s Tenth BTA is based upon the Ten-Year Plans filed with the Commission by parties in January 2018. It also incorporates information and comments provided by participants and attendees in the BTA workshops and report review process. ACC Staff and ESTA appreciate the contributions, cooperation, and support of industry participants throughout the Tenth BTA process. 1 Arizona Revised Statute §40-360.02 Biennial Transmission Assessment for 2018-2027 Docket No.
    [Show full text]
  • Clark County Environmentally Sensitive Lands Double Canyon !( Arrow Canyon !( !( Moapa Muddy Spring Bunkerville
    Mesquite Clark County Environmentally Sensitive Lands Double Canyon !( Arrow Canyon !( !( Moapa Muddy Spring Bunkerville Moapa Valley ESL - Priority 1 Hidden Forest Cabin !( Logandale Indian Springs Weiser Bowl Overton ESL - Priority 2 !( !( Moapa Indian Springs Pueblo Grande de Nevada Tribal Lands !( ESL - Priority 3 The Narrows !( ESL - Priority 4 Fossil Ridge !( Devils Throat Mud Spring Copper Spring !( !( Willow Spring Corn Creek Campsite !( !( !( ESL - Priority 5 Gass Peak Lee Canyon !( !( Marble Quarry ESL - Priority 6 Charcoal Kilns Las Vegas Paiute !( Muddy Mountains !( Mt. Charleston Tribal Lands !( !( Lower Kyle Canyon Horse Spring !( Bitter Spring ESL - Priority 7 !( Ca!(mp Lee Canyon !( Mary Jane Falls !( !(Big Falls Kyle Canyon Gold Butte !( !( !( Charleston Peak !( Lee Spring Red Stone BLM Disposal Areas !( Gypsum Cave !( !( Griffith Peak !( Bowl of Fire !( Great Unconformity Overthrust !( Non-ESL Administrative Areas !( !( !( Calico Hills Coal Spring !( Bonelli Peak !( Lava Butte !( !( !( Red Rock Rainbow Gardens !( !( Boulder City Conservation Easement Willow Spring Red Rock !( Sandstone Ranch Scenic Highways and Federal Byways !( !( Oliver Ranch !( Mountain Spring River Mountain Hoover Dam Hoover Dam !( !( !( !( Aesthetic,Historic and Cultural Sites Potosi !( Mountain Springs Mt. Potosi Black Mountain !( Black Canyon !( Keystone Spring !( Bird Spring !( Shenandoah Peak !( Goodsprings Sandy Valley !( Columbia Pass Eldorado Canyon !( Devil Peak McClanahan Spring Keyhole Canyon !( !( McCullough Spring !( !( Oro Hanna Spring !( Highland Spring !( Cow Spring !( Wild Horse Spring Date: Jauary 29, 2004 !( Joshua Forest !( Crescent Peak !( 0 39,990 79,980 119,970 159,960 Searchlight SCALE IN FEET Source: Clark County Central Repository Spirit Mountain This information is for display purposes only. !( Christmas Tree Pass !( No liability is assumed as to the accuracy of the data delineated hereon.
    [Show full text]