DOCSLIB.ORG

Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities Operating Permit Renewal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities Operating Permit Renewal CHEYENNE BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OPERATING PERMIT RENEWAL Water Resources Report Prepared by: /s/Carol Purchase Carol Purchase Hydrologist 307-326-2543 [email protected] Date: 02/28/2012 Brush Creek/Hayden Ranger District Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests Thunder Basin National Grasslands P.O. Box 249, Saratoga, WY 82331 Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities Water Facilities Reauthorization Water Resources Report By Carol Purchase, February 28, 2012 Introduction The City of Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities (CBOPU) has had a water collection and storage system on the Medicine Bow NF since 1962. In 1962, the original water collection and storage facilities were authorized for the purpose of operation and maintenance of two reservoirs, 21 miles of pipeline and a 3,300 foot long tunnel (Stage I). The system was expanded in 1964 to add a third reservoir. The entire system was increased in size and extent in the1980’s following the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Stage II Development of the Water Collection Facilities of the CBOPU. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for this action on December 8, 1981. The Stage II development was authorized under an easement issued on July 26, 1982. The 30 year easement is expiring and the CBOPU has applied for renewal of the easement. Proposed Action The proposed action is to issue a new authorization to CBOPU for the operation and maintenance of the water collection, transmission and reservoir system owned and operated by CBOPU on NFS lands. The period of the new authorization is proposed to be 30 years. Design criteria would be developed for additional protection of the environment beyond that provided by standard authorization clauses. The design criteria will be tied to the authorization through an operation and maintenance plan. Existing facilities currently covered by the easement include: 126 concrete diversion structures 3,500 foot long tunnel crossing under the Continental Divide. About 26 miles of concrete and steel pipelines, with a combined flow capacity of about 240 million gallons of water per day. This system is used to transport water collected by the diversion structures located along the west side of the Continental Divide, into Hog Park Reservoir, which is located on the east side of the continental divide. Hog Park Dam and Reservoir, which impounds 22,600 acre feet of water behind a 120 ft. high dam. Rob Roy Reservoir, which impounds about 35,600 acre feet of water behind a 140 ft. high dam. Some of the land around Rob Roy Reservoir is owned by CBOPU, including the dam location. Lake Owen Dam and Reservoir which impounds about 700 acre feet of water behind a 12 foot high earthen embankment. About 24 miles of concrete and steel pipelines, with a flow capacity of about 26 million gallons of water per day, which are used to transport water from Rob Roy Reservoir to Lake Owen Reservoir. From Lake Owen the water is transported to the Cheyenne area through two steel pipelines with a combined flow capacity of about 26 million gallons of water per day. Necessary access roads. 1 The right-of-way widths are limited to 100 feet in width. The rights-of-way for reservoirs, dams and appurtenant structures are limited to the area actually occupied. Purpose and Need The purpose of this action is to provide a new authorization for existing facilities on NFS lands, for which a demonstrated public need has been shown. The need of the action is to allow CBOPU to continue to operate its water collection and transmission system to provide water to the residents and businesses of the City of Cheyenne, the South Cheyenne Water and Sewer District, and Warren Air Force Base. About 60% of Cheyenne’s water comes from the system located on NFS lands. The rest comes from four wells located around the City of Cheyenne. No new construction of collection or transmission facilities is proposed for the new authorization. Existing Condition The operations of this water system have been monitored by the U.S. Forest Service and found to be in compliance with the easement conditions (USFS, 2011a). The focus of this report is to compare the existing condition to the expected effects described in the Cheyenne State II Water Diversion Proposal FEIS (FEIS) (USFS, 1981) and to review current existing conditions to determine compliance with the relevant water and aquatic standards and guidelines in the Medicine Bow Revised Forest Plan (USFS, 2003) and with existing laws and regulations. Soil erosion, such as that occurring on the Rob Roy lake shore, and from unauthorized ATV use of the pipeline access are not covered in this report, but are addressed in the Soil report (USFS, 2011b). Likewise, effects of this water system on aquatic life and aquatic habitat are covered in the Aquatics report (USFS, 2012). Douglas Creek Watershed Douglas Creek has been altered by human activities for two centuries. Early in the 1800's, trappers removed beavers from the drainages, reducing wetlands and pools along the major drainages (Young et al, 1994). Between 1870 and 1940, railroad ties were driven down Douglas Creek and many other creeks and rivers in the Snowy Range. To drive the ties down the stream channel, logs and boulders were removed, often with dynamite. Tie drives widened and straightened stream channels, reducing pools and habitat complexity (Young et al, 1994). Gold mining along Douglas Creek started in 1868 and has continued in one form or another ever since (westernmininghistory.com). Suction dredging, both with large machinery or small equipment has occurred over the past century. The effects of the ongoing small scale suction dredging still can be seen in the summer as piles of gravel from the recreational gold miners dot Douglas Creek from Keystone to below the confluence with Lake Creek. Reservoir Release Effects on Spring Runoff Hydrograph The original Rob Roy Reservoir was completed in 1966, and the capacity of the dam was approximately one-third of the average annual runoff of Douglas Creek. A USGS gage (active from 1955 to 1965) was located above Keystone and approximately 1 mile below the current Rob Roy dam. The drainage area above this gage is just slightly larger than the drainage area1 of Rob Roy Reservoir and so the flows should be very similar to the natural flows in the Rob Roy Watershed. Figure 1 below gives the peak flow data from 1955 to 1965 for this gage. Peak flows averaged about 575 cfs, and vary between 390 cfs in 1964 to over 850 cfs. (Note that USGS data indicates that several years in the early 1960's were low peak flows for most 1 The USGS gage has a watershed area of 22.10 square miles, the watershed area above the Rob Roy dam is 21.0 square miles (MBRTB GIS database). 2 creeks in the Snowy Range.) Figure 1. Peak flow data for Douglas Creek above Keystone for the years 1956-1965. (USGS Data for Wyoming: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wy/nwis/sw) There is no data for the gauging station above Keystone after 1965, but peak flow data for the USGS gage downstream on Douglas Creek (located below the confluence of Pelton and Douglas Creeks) shows that high peak flows did not appear to decrease significantly after this dam was in operation in the early 1970's (Figure 2.), likely due to the small storage capacity of the reservoir in relation to the total watershed runoff. This figure also shows the representative range of high flows that have historically occurred in Douglas Creek. Figure 2. Peak flow data for Douglas Creek near Foxpark for the years 1947-1972. (USGS Data for Wyoming: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wy/nwis/sw) 3 The reservoir enlargement in 1987 increased the capacity to enable storage of more than one year of average annual runoff from the watershed. Looking at the flows below Rob Roy Reservoir, measured by CBOPU2, the increased storage capacity appears to have the result of reducing the average peak flow below the reservoir. Figure 3 shows that during average or low snowpack years, the peak flows are at or slightly above 130 cfs, the 'flushing flow' required by the easement conditions. The easement also allows higher natural flows to be released, as occurred in 2010 and 2011 during very high snowpack years. Spring runoff in 2010 and 2011 resulted in 100 year return interval flows on many of the streams and rivers in the area, however the flows released by Rob Roy Reservoir were closer to the pre-dam average peak flow (2 year return interval) than to a 50 or 100 year flow event (USGS Data for Wyoming: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wy/nwis/sw). From these lower than expected flows, it appears that the Rob Roy Reservoir expansion has reduced peak flows along Douglas Creek and reduced overbank flows, as can also be seen by the presence of lodgepole and other upland vegetation growing on the floodplains along Douglas Creek below the reservoir (USFS, 2006). This reduction in peak flows during very high snowpack years has also likely contributed to reduced flooding in the Keystone area, reducing flood damage to the cabins and summer homes that are located along Douglas Creek below the reservoir. Under pre-dam conditions it would have been very probable that the flows in Douglas Creek in 2010 and 2011 would have been similar to the high flows shown in Figure 1, which are 40 to 50% higher than flows measured in 2010 and 2011. 700 600 500 400 300 200 Annual Annual Peak Streamflow (cfs) 100 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Figure 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2017 - JCR Evaluation Form
    2017 - JCR Evaluation Form SPECIES: Moose PERIOD: 6/1/2017 - 5/31/2018 HERD: MO545 - SNOWY RANGE HUNT AREAS: 38, 41 PREPARED BY: WILL SCHULTZ 2012 - 2016 Average 2017 2018 Proposed Trend Count: 40 169 180 Harvest: 46 42 42 Hunters: 52 43 43 Hunter Success: 88% 98% 98 % Active Licenses: 52 43 43 Active License Success 88% 98% 98 % Recreation Days: 426 390 390 Days Per Animal: 9.3 9.3 9.3 Males per 100 Females: 119 93 Juveniles per 100 Females 50 45 Trend Based Objective (± 20%) 75 (60 - 90) Management Strategy: Special Percent population is above (+) or (-) objective: 125% Number of years population has been + or - objective in recent trend: 2 Proposed harvest rates (percent of pre-season estimate for each sex/age group): JCR Year Proposed Females ≥ 1 year old: NA% NA% Males ≥ 1 year old: NA% NA% Juveniles (< 1 year old): NA% NA% Total: NA% NA% Proposed change in post-season population: NA% NA% 199 200 201 2012 - 2017 Postseason Classification Summary for Moose Herd MO545 - SNOWY RANGE MALES FEMALES JUVENILES Males to 100 Females Young to Tot Cls Conf 100 Conf 100 Year Post Pop Ylg Adult Total % Total % Total % Cls Obj Ylng Adult Total Int Fem Int Adult 2012 0 4 14 18 44% 14 34% 9 22% 41 0 29 100 129 ± 0 64 ± 0 28 2013 0 5 27 32 42% 27 35% 18 23% 77 0 19 100 119 ± 0 67 ± 0 31 2014 266 2 20 22 42% 22 42% 8 15% 52 254 9 91 100 ± 35 36 ± 17 18 2015 0 0 17 17 57% 8 27% 5 17% 30 246 0 212 212 ± 0 62 ± 0 20 2016 0 9 77 86 44% 76 39% 33 17% 195 0 12 101 113 ± 0 43 ± 0 20 2017 0 17 49 66 39% 71 42% 32 19% 169 0 24 69 93 ± 0 45 ± 0 23 202 2018 HUNTING SEASON RECOMMENDATIONS SNOWY RANGE MOOSE (MO545) Season Dates Hunt Area Type Opens Closes Quota License Limitations 38, 41 1 Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\A Projects\AAA IBLA Decs\115IBLA\L004-007.Wpd
    RAYMUNDO J. CHICO IBLA 87-681 Decided May 30, 1990 Appeal from a decision of the Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management, declaring mining claims null and void ab initio. W MC 230232 et al. Reversed and remanded. 1. Boundaries--Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Wilderness--Mining Claims: Lands Subject to--Mining Claims: Location--Mining Claims: Lode Claims--Mining Claims: Withdrawn Land--Wilderness Act--Withdrawals and Reservations: Effect of Where BLM declares mining claims null and void ab initio due to location on unavailable wilderness land, but the mining claimant offers a map to show that some of the mining claims lie entirely on land open to mineral entry and other claims only partially overlap wilderness land, the decision will be reversed and remanded to BLM to verify the location of the overlapping claims. APPEARANCES: Raymundo J. Chico, pro se, and Joy K. Moseley, Senior Landman, American Copper & Nickel Company, Inc., Wheat Ridge, Colorado, for appellant. OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE BYRNES Raymundo J. Chico has appealed from a decision of the Wyoming State Office, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), dated June 26, 1987, declaring unpatented lode mining claims (see Appendix A) null and void ab initio. According to the BLM decision, the claims were located on wilderness area lands, segregated from mineral entry on December 31, 1983. The claims the BLM decision listed 1/ were located on May 22 and 25, 1986, in secs. 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, and 22 in T. 14 N., R. 80 W., sixth _____________________________________ 1/ The BLM decision states that "63 unpatented lode mining claims (See enclosure 1) * * * are hereby declared null and void ab initio." However, only the 45 claims enumerated at Appendix A of this decision were listed on "enclosure 1" of the BLM decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior United States Geological
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-1638-A PAMPHLET MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE SAVAGE RUN WILDERNESS, CARBON AND ALBANY COUNTIES, WYOMING By M. E. McCallum, U.S. Geological Survey and Steven £. Kluender, U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Savage Run Wilderness in the Medicine Bow National Forest, Carbon and Albany Counties, Wyoming. The area was established as a wilderness by Public Law 95-Z37, February 24, 1978. MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL SUMMARY STATEMENT Although numerous, small gold and copper mining operations were conducted for a number of years around the turn of the century and intermittently thereafter in areas immediately to the east, there is no evidence of any mineral production within the Savage Run Wilderness.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,770 83 25,853 Alabama Totals 42,218 83 42,301 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,876 520 75,396 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,118 0 19,118 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,917 7 39,924 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 979,079 21,741 1,000,820 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 654 654 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,183 15 60,198 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,814 0 4,814 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,144,010 235 2,144,245 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 46,758 0 46,758 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,083 41 23,124 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 348,626 63 348,689 South Baranof Wilderness Tongass National Forest 315,833 0 315,833 South Etolin Wilderness Tongass National Forest 82,593 834 83,427 Refresh Date: 10/14/2017
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon County DRAFT Natural Resource Management Plan
    FEBRUARY 16, 2021 Carbon County DRAFT Natural Resource Management Plan Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices (Intentionally Left Blank) Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... VII LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................10 1.1 PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................10 1.2 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................11 1.3 CARBON COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS ..............................................15 1.4 CREDIBLE DATA ....................................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 2: CUSTOM AND CULTURE ........................................................................................21 2.1 COUNTY INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ....................................................................................21 2.2 CULTURAL/HERITAGE/PALEONTOLOGICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Mullen Fire Daily Update Monday, October 5, 2020: 9:00 Am
    Mullen Fire Daily Update Monday, October 5, 2020: 9:00 am Fire Facts Virtual Community Q&A TODAY at 5 p.m. The meeting will be livestreamed on the Mullen Fire Information page Location (https://www.facebook.com/MullenFire) 38 miles west of Laramie, Wyoming Summary Fire size today: 151,711 Per IR flight 10- 4 8 Fire managers measured increased containment at 14% and continued aggressive p.m. firing operations to secure lines in several locations, including the northwest, Fire start date: September 17, 2020 northcentral and southeast areas of the fire. On north/northwest corner, crews Cause: Under investigation worked to tie in lines to the 500 road north of the Savage Run Wilderness to keep the fire south of the road. Along the north central flank, the multi-day firing neared Call Laramie Ranger District anonymous tip completion along the 542 road. They also tied into the Keystone Fire scar, and worked line 307-745-2392 with information that may in front of the fire in the Rob Roy and Cinnabar Park areas. Thick smoke from these aid in the fire investigation. multiple operations was carried into to Laramie by the robust west wind. The volume Containment: 14% of smoke from the northwest reflected the area’s fuel density. Resources: 1095 firefighters total To the southeast, aerial ignitions took place between the fire’s edge between Miller’s Mandatory Evacuations: Lake and the Pelton Creek area to protect Woods Landing, increase line depth, and Multiple evacuations and pre-evacuations are in contain potential long range spotting across WY230.
    [Show full text]
  • Carbon County Natural Resource Management Plan
    APRIL 13, 2021 Carbon County Natural Resource Management Plan Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices (Intentionally Left Blank) Natural Resource Management Plan Y2 Consultants, LLC & Falen Law Offices CONTENTS ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................... III LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. VII LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... IX CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 10 1.1 PURPOSE................................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 11 1.3 CARBON COUNTY NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROCESS ............................................... 15 1.4 CREDIBLE DATA ........................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 2: CARBON COUNTY CUSTOM AND CULTURE ........................................................ 21 2.1 COUNTY INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ...................................................................................... 21 2.2 CULTURAL/HERITAGE/PALEONTOLOGICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Snowy Range Route Number Legend Special Vehicle Designation Dates Allowed
    e r u t l u c i r g A f o t n e m t r a p e D s e t a t S d e t i n U 350000 106°45'0"W 360000 106°37'30"W 370000 106°30'0"W 380000 106°22'30"W 390000 106°15'0"W 400000 106°7'30"W 410000 106°0'0"W 420000 e c i v r e S t s e r o F PURPOSE AND CONTENTS Legend 4620000 4620000 1 2 0 2 n a J g n i m o y W OF THIS MAP Roads O pen to H ig h w ay Leg al V eh icles Seasonal and Special Vehicle Designations s r o o d t u O t a e r G s ' a c i r e m A T h e desig nations sh ow n on th is motor v eh icle use map (MV U M) w ere made by th e responsible official pursuant to Roads O pen to All V eh icles Beginning Ending 36 CFR 212.51; are effectiv e as of th e date on th e front Snowy Range Route Number Legend Special Vehicle Designation Dates Allowed T rails O pen to All V eh icles Mile Post Mile Post s t c i r t s i D r e g n a R n e d y a H cov er of th is MV U M; and w ill remain in effect until (!72 5001 10 T rails open to Seasonal Desig nation 05/05-11/30 Entire Leng th superceded by next year's MV U M.
    [Show full text]
  • Roadless Area Evaluation
    Appendix C MEDICINE BOW NATIONAL FOREST Revised Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement Roadless Area Evaluation Table of Contents ROADLESS AREAS....................................................................................................................... C-1 Background .............................................................................................................................C-1 CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................... C-2 Wilderness Capability:............................................................................................................C-3 Availability for Wilderness:....................................................................................................C-3 Need for Wilderness................................................................................................................C-4 INDIVIDUAL ROADLESS AREA ANALYSES: .............................................................................. C-11 R20601Strawberry Creek 5,876 Acres................................................................................ C-12 Capability..............................................................................................................................C-13 Availability: ..........................................................................................................................C-14 Need ......................................................................................................................................C-15
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State
    Table 7 - National Wilderness Areas by State * Unit is in two or more States ** Acres estimated pending final boundary determination + Special Area that is part of a proclaimed National Forest State National Wilderness Area NFS Other Total Unit Name Acreage Acreage Acreage Alabama Cheaha Wilderness Talladega National Forest 7,400 0 7,400 Dugger Mountain Wilderness** Talladega National Forest 9,048 0 9,048 Sipsey Wilderness William B. Bankhead National Forest 25,769 86 25,855 Alabama Totals 42,217 86 42,303 Alaska Chuck River Wilderness 74,785 519 75,304 Coronation Island Wilderness Tongass National Forest 19,089 0 19,089 Endicott River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 98,396 0 98,396 Karta River Wilderness Tongass National Forest 39,900 0 39,900 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 7 7 Kootznoowoo Wilderness Tongass National Forest 967,423 0 967,423 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 34,429 34,429 Kuiu Wilderness Tongass National Forest 60,698 0 60,698 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Maurille Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 4,685 0 4,685 Misty Fiords National Monument Wilderness Tongass National Forest 2,146,679 237 2,146,916 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 15 15 Petersburg Creek-Duncan Salt Chuck Wilderness Tongass National Forest 47,106 0 47,106 Pleasant/Lemusurier/Inian Islands Wilderness Tongass National Forest 23,267 0 23,267 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 56 56 Russell Fjord Wilderness Tongass National Forest 336,513 0 336,513 FS-administered, outside NFS bdy 0 61 61 Refresh Date: 10/18/2014 Table 7 - National
    [Show full text]
  • Designated Wilderness & Wilderness Study Areas in Wyoming
    DESIGNATED WILDERNESS & WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS IN WYOMING Congress recognized certain lands should be Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service preserved for their historical, educational, and (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) are the aesthetic values beyond protections already primary federal agencies charged with managing provided by other statutes. To ensure the Wilderness Areas. Once an area is included in the preservation of these lands, Congress passed NWPS, the lands continue to be managed by the various acts designating special areas of land for agency having jurisdiction immediately prior to management in accordance with preservation the area’s designation as wilderness.5 principals. Those acts generally identified lands to be preserved, the agency charged with In general, the administering agency of the managing them, and set out mandates and designated Wilderness Area must preserve the baseline requirements for how those lands are to wilderness character of the area and administer be managed. the area for such purposes consistent for which it may have been established.6 Except as otherwise provided in the Wilderness Act, Wilderness Wilderness Areas Areas shall be devoted to the public purposes for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, The Wilderness Act of 1964 created the National conservation, and historical use.7 Generally, 1 Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). The no commercial enterprises or permanent roads system combined federally-owned lands that were are allowed within any Wilderness Area. And, designated
    [Show full text]
  • Table C, Chapter 09. Visibility Impairment/PM Fine Control
    Chapter 09. Visibility Impairment/PM Fine Control Section 02. Visibility. (a) Purpose. This section assures reasonable progress towards the national goal of preventing future, and remedying existing, visibility impairment in Class I areas. (b) Applicability. This section applies to all Class I areas in the State of Wyoming as designated per Chapter 6, Section 4(c) or redesignated in accordance with Chapter 6, Section 4(d) of these Regulations and to sources in Wyoming the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area including mandatory Federal Class I areas in any other State. (c) Definitions and Abbreviations. The following terms are explicitly defined for use in this section. As used in this section, all terms not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in Chapter 6, Section 4. (i) "Adverse impact on visibility" means, for the purposes of Chapter 9, Section 2(e), visibility impairment which interferes with the management, protection, preservation, or enjoyment of the visitor's visual experience of the Class I area. Any determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis taking into account the geographic extent, intensity, duration, frequency and time of visibility impairments, and how these factors correlate with times of visitor use of the Class I area, and the frequency and timing of natural conditions that reduce visibility. (ii) "Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)" means that emission reduction control device, facility, method, or system, used to achieve the best continuous emission reduction for each pollutant emitted by an existing stationary facility.
    [Show full text]