DOCSLIB.ORG

Avenue West – Suite a Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avenue West – Suite a Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT North Dakota Field Office 99 23rd Avenue West – Suite A Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619 In Reply Refer To: www.blm.gov/mt 1600/3100 (MTC030) August 25, 2014 Dear Reader: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) North Dakota Field Office has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential effects from offering 7 nominated lease parcels for competitive oil and gas leasing in a sale tentatively scheduled to occur on January 27, 2015. The EA with an unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is available for a 30-day public comment period. Written comments must be postmarked by September 24, 2014 to be considered. Comments may be submitted using one of the following methods: Email: [email protected] Mail: North Dakota Field Office Attn: Shelly Ziman 99 23rd Avenue West, Suite A Dickinson, ND 58601-2619 Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – will be available for public review. If you wish to withhold personal identifying information from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you must clearly state, in the first line of your written comment, “CONFIDENTIALITY REQUESTED.” While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses, will be available for public review. Upon review and consideration of public comments, the EA will be updated as needed. Based on our analysis, parcels recommended for leasing in our assessment would be included as part of a competitive oil and gas lease sale tentatively scheduled to occur on January 27, 2015. Prior to issuance of any leases, the Decision Record (DR) and FONSI will be finalized and posted for public review on our BLM website. Please refer to the Montana/Dakotas BLM website at www.blm.gov/qtld. Current and updated information about our EAs, Lease Sale Notices and corresponding information pertaining to this sale can be found at the link referenced above. If you have any questions or would like more information about lease sale notices or the issuance of the EA, DR and FONSI, please contact me at 701-227-7700. Sincerely, Richard A. Rymerson Field Manager United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2014-189-EA January 27, 2015 Project Title: Oil and Gas Lease Parcel Sale, January 2015 Location: North Dakota Field Office (see attached Appendix A for list of lease parcels by number and legal description and Map 1.1.1) North Dakota Field Office Oil and Gas Lease Sale EA DOI-BLM-MT-C030-2014-189-EA CONTENTS Page 1.0 PURPOSE and NEED ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ................................................................3 1.3 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s) ................................................................3 1.4 Public Scoping and Identification of Issues ................................................................4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ............................ 4 2.1 Alternative A – No Action .........................................................................................4 2.2 Alternative B- Proposed Action .................................................................................5 2.3 Alternative C – BLM Preferred Action ......................................................................5 2.4 Additional Considerations for Alternatives B and C ..................................................5 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................7 3.2 Air Resources .............................................................................................................8 3.3 Soil Resources ...........................................................................................................16 3.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................................17 3.5 Vegetation Resources................................................................................................18 3.6 Special Status Species ...............................................................................................21 3.7 Fish and Wildlife.......................................................................................................26 3.8 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................28 3.9 Native American Religious Concerns………………..……………………………. 30 3.10 Paleontology .............................................................................................................30 3.11 Visual Resources .......................................................................................................31 3.12 Livestock Grazing…………………………………………………………………. 33 3.13 Recreation and Travel Management….…………………………………………… 33 3.14 Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................34 3.15 Fluid Minerals ...........................................................................................................34 3.16 Economics……………………………………………………………………….... 36 3.17 Social……………………………………………………………………………….38 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................................................................................. 44 4.1 Assumptions and Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario Summary .........45 4.2 Air Resources ............................................................................................................51 4.3 Soil Resources ...........................................................................................................55 4.4 Water Resources .......................................................................................................56 4.5 Vegetation Resources ...............................................................................................58 4.6 Special Status Species ..............................................................................................61 4.7 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................63 4.8 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................64 4.9 Native American Religious Concerns………………………..………………….. ...66 4.10 Paleontology .............................................................................................................67 4.11 Visual Resources………………………………………………..……………………… .. 68 4.12 Livestock Grazing………………………………………………………………… .69 4.13 Recreation and Travel Management……………………………………………… .70 4.14 Lands and Realty.......................................................................................................71 4.15 Fluid Minerals ...........................................................................................................72 4.16 Economics…………………………………………………………………………. 74 4.17 Social Conditions and Environmental Justice……………………………………...76 4.18 Cumulative Impacts………………………………………………………………. .77 5.0 CONSULTATION & COORDINATION .................................................................................... 81 5.1 Persons, Groups, & Agencies Consulted ..................................................................81 5.2 Summary of Public Participation ..............................................................................82 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 82 7.0 DEFINITIONS/ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................... 89 FIGURES 3.2.2 Air Quality Trends 3.2.3 Visibility Trends in Nearby Class I Areas TABLES 3.2.1 USEPA Air Quality Index Reports 3.2.2 Monitored Concentrations Representative of the Study Area 3.5.1.5 USFWS Riparian and Wetland Areas 3.5.2.1 Noxious weeds in North Dakota 3.6.1 Aquatic sensitive or specials status wildlife species in the analysis area 3.6.2 List of sensitive bird species found in North Dakota 3.12.1 BLM Grazing Allotments 3.15.1 Existing Development Activity 3.15.2 Oil and Gas Leasing and Existing Development within Townships Containing Lease Parcels 3.15.3 Oil and Gas Leasing and Existing Development Abbreviations Key 3.17.1 Census and Population Estimates, 2010-2013 3.17.2 Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change, 2010-2013 3.17.3 2010 Census and 2013 Estimates of Sex and Median Age 3.17.4 Housing Project Occupancy and Vacancy Status 3.17.5 Race and Hispanic Percentages 3.17.6 Percent Poverty, All Ages for 2011 4.1.1 Disturbance Associated With Existing Well Pads
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 12 North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges September 2008 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved by Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge Stephen D. Guertin Date Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge Regional Director, Region 6 Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service McLean National Wildlife Refuge Lakewood, CO Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge White Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges Submitted by Concurred with by Kim Hanson Date Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date Project Leader Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex National Wildlife Refuge System (Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pingree, ND Lakewood, CO Lloyd Jones Date Paul Cornes Date Project Leader Refuge Supervisor Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 (Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, McLean, Stewart Lakewood, CO Lake, and White Lake national wildlife refuges) Coleharbor, ND Roger Hollevoet Date Project Leader Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex (Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, and Stump Lake national
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security Threatens Northern Border Wildernesses
    Wilderness In Peril: Border Security Measures Threaten Wilderness along the Northern Border with Canada An Analysis Prepared by Wilderness Watch October 2012 Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 Missoula, MT 59807 406-542-2048 www.wildernesswatch.org For more information, contact: George Nickas, Executive Director Kevin Proescholdt, Conservation Director [email protected] [email protected] 406-542-2048 612-201-9266 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………….Page 3 Introduction………………………………………………………..………..….....Page 4 Background…………………………………………………..………………....…Page 4 A. Early 20th Century Border Easements B. International Boundary Treaties with Canada C. 2005 REAL ID Act D. 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Border Patrol Practices on the Southern Border and Lessons for the North……………………………………………………………….Page 9 A. Border Wall Construction B. Illegal Roads and Vehicle Routes C. Border Security Infrastructure D. Motorized Patrols Emerging Major Threats to Wildernesses near the Northern Border……...…Page 13 A. Congressional Legislation B. Northern Border Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement C. 2006 MOU and Motorized Patrols D. Administrative Waiver of Federal Laws E. Clearing and Construction in Border Reservations F. Conclusion Needed Actions to Reestablish and Affirm Wilderness Protections Along the Northern Border……………………………………….……………..Page 17 A. Existing Homeland Security Laws B. 2006 MOU C. Northern Border PEIS D. Pending Legislation E. Restore Wilderness Protection Appendix - Wildernesses at Risk along the Northern Border………………....Page 18 3 Executive Summary Under the guise of border security, a plethora of new and proposed laws, policies, memoranda, and other governmental actions pose an unprecedented threat to Wildernesses, including in many national parks, along our nation’s Northern Border. This whitepaper describes the threats and presents several recommendations for securing the protection of Wilderness and parks along the Northern Border.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
    United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings of the 2008 Forest Service Northeastern Recreation Northern Research Station Research Symposium General Technical Report NRS-P-42 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium Policy Statement The objective of the NERR Symposium is to positively influence our profession by allowing managers and academicians in the governmental, education, and private recreation and tourism sectors to share practical and scientific knowledge. This objective is met through providing a professional forum for quality information exchange on current management practices, programs, and research applications in the field, as well as, a comfortable social setting that allows participants to foster friendships with colleagues. Students and all those interested in continuing their education in recreation and tourism management are welcome. NERR 2008 Steering Committee Arne Arnberger – University of BOKU, Vienna, Austria Kelly Bricker – University of Utah Robert Bristow – Westfield State College Robert Burns – West Virginia University Fred Clark – U.S. Forest Service John Confer – California University of Pennsylvania Chad Dawson – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Edwin Gomez – Old Dominion University Alan Graefe – Penn State University Laurie Harmon – George Mason University Andrew Holdnak – University of West Florida Deborah Kerstetter – Penn State University David Klenosky – Purdue University (Proceedings co-editor) Diane Kuehn – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry (Website Coordinator)
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240 SEP 14 Dear Mr. President: It is with pleasure that I recommend the establishment of Lostwood Wilderness within the Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (approved September 3, 1964; 78 Stat. 890, 892; 16 U.S.C. 1132(c)), directs the Secretary of the Interior to review roadless areas of 5>000 acres or more in the national parks, monuments, and other units of the National Park System, wildlife refuges, and game ranges, and report to the President his recommenda- tion as to the suitability of each such area for preservation as wilderness. The Act further directs the President to advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation of each such area as wilderness. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall}. T3ecome effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. This Department has recently completed its review of such a roadless area in Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge. Based upon this review, we recommend 5>577 acres within the national wildlife refuge "be designated as wilderness. Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, which contains 26,7^7 acres, is one of the northernmost national wildlife refuges and is located in the "Coteau" region of northwestern North Dakota. This is an area of sharply rolling hills, covered with native prairie grasses, with thousands of small natural ponds and marshes nestled between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Description, Comprehensive
    3 Refuge Resources and Description USFWS A Female Canvasback with Her Brood The prairies of North Dakota have become an ecological GLOBAL WARMING treasure of biological importance for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie potholes of North The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Dakota and South Dakota support a wide diversity of an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies wildlife, but they are most famous for their role in under its direction that have land management waterfowl production. Although the Prairie Pothole responsibilities to consider potential climate change Region occupies only 10% of North America’s waterfowl- effects as part of long-range planning endeavors. breeding range, it produces approximately 50% of the continent’s waterfowl population. The Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded This chapter describes the physical environment and that ecosystem protection is important to carbon biological resources of lands within the 12 national sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon wildlife refuges. In addition, this chapter addresses the currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The fire and grazing history, cultural resources, visitor report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture services, socioeconomic environment, and operations and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be of the refuges. emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s 3.1 Physical Environment atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global The refuges are located across North Dakota from warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation the Canadian border south to the state line of South planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilderness Act of 1964
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 Source: US House of Representatives Office of the Law This is the 1964 act that started it all Revision Counsel website at and created the first designated http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml wilderness in the US and Nevada. This version, updated January 2, 2006, includes a list of all wilderness designated before that date. The list does not mention designations made by the December 2006 White Pine County bill. -CITE- 16 USC CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 01/02/2006 -EXPCITE- TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -HEAD- CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -MISC1- Sec. 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of policy; wilderness areas; administration for public use and enjoyment, protection, preservation, and gathering and dissemination of information; provisions for designation as wilderness areas. (b) Management of area included in System; appropriations. (c) "Wilderness" defined. 1132. Extent of System. (a) Designation of wilderness areas; filing of maps and descriptions with Congressional committees; correction of errors; public records; availability of records in regional offices. (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classifications as primitive areas; Presidential recommendations to Congress; approval of Congress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado. (c) Review by Secretary of the Interior of roadless areas of national park system and national wildlife refuges and game ranges and suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; authority of Secretary of the Interior to maintain roadless areas in national park system unaffected. (d) Conditions precedent to administrative recommendations of suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; publication in Federal Register; public hearings; views of State, county, and Federal officials; submission of views to Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • LOSTWOOD NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kenmare, North Dakota ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1934 U.S. Department of the Interi
    LOSTWOOD NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kenmare, North Dakota ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1934 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM \ REVIEW AND APPROVALS » LOSTWOOD NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kenmare, North Dakota ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1984 Refuge Supervisor Review Date Regional Office Approval Date INTRODUCTION The 26,747 acre Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge lies in northwestern North Dakota, 23 miles,south of the Canadian border and 70 miles east of the Montana line. It was established in 1935 by Executive Order 7171 as a " . refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wild­ life . within Burke and Mountrail Counties on the Missouri du Coteau (a geological feature created by a terminal moraine deposited about 10,000 years ago by the Wisconsin glacier). The refuge topography is rolling to steep hills covered with native (70%) and tame (30%) grasslands, small patches of aspen (about 1% of the refuge), and numerous wetlands. This is the largest block of native grassland under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ownership in the pothole region of Minnesota, Montana, and North and South Dakota. The hills are most frequently covered with western snowberry, needle-and-thread, green needlegrass, western wheatgrass, blue grama, plains muhly, small-flower aster, northern bedstraw, goldenrod, wild licorice, meadow anemone, white sage and others. Some of the native resident fauna include sharp-tailed grouse, whitetail deer, beaver, coyote, and whitetail jackrabbit. The native migratory fauna include waterfowl (mallard, wigeon, gadwall, blue-winged teal, giant Canada goose and others), shorebirds (upland plover, marbled godwit, avocet, piping plover, and others), passerines (clay-colored sparrow, Sprague's pipit, sharp-tailed hawk, Swainson's hawk, marsh hawk, short-eared owl, and others).
    [Show full text]
  • The Presidency and America's Public Lands
    Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America's Public Lands Author: Maria Lynn McCollester Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:107219 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2016 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America’s Public Lands Maria Lynn McCollester A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Boston College Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences Graduate School September 2016 © Copyright 2016 Maria Lynn McCollester Executive Power in Unlikely Places: The Presidency and America’s Public Lands Maria McCollester Advisor: Marc Landy, Ph.D. By examining the interactions between the presidency and the other branches of government, research illuminates the causes and mechanisms by which the presidency, and its power, ebbs and flows. Due to the nature of the powers directly granted to the president within the Constitution, much consideration has been given to presidential power through the prisms of national security, international affairs, and times of national emergency. Yet the presidency consists of more than the roles of commander- and diplomat-in-chief. By looking beyond the more obvious considerations of presidential power, the complexity of the institution’s development is not only revealed, but more fully explained. Consequently, this dissertation analyzes the development of presidential power by looking at the less obvious. It considers the use of formal executive tools to implement congressionally delegated and supported authority in an area of domestic policy: the creation of federally protected public lands.
    [Show full text]
  • State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
    State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze Final Appendix C: Federal Land Manager Air Quality Value Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report June, 2016 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 ON THE COVER Courthouse Towers, Arches National Park, Utah. Photo by Debbie Miller. THIS PAGE: Jumping Cholla, Superstition Wilderness, Arizona. Photo by Steve Boutcher Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 U.S. Forest Service Air Quality Program 1400 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20250 National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Air Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Air Quality Branch 7333 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 375 Lakewood, CO 80235 October 2010 The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Designations - Background Memorandum
    13.9106.01000 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Natural Resources Committee September 2011 FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS - BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM Section 1 of 2011 Senate Bill No. 2234 (attached federal government would take over the state program as an appendix) directs the Legislative Management due to the delay resulting from the Legislative to consider various mechanisms for improving Assembly meeting once every two years. coordination and consultation regarding federal The opponents to the bill as introduced argued that designation over land and water resources in this the bill would be preempted by federal law. The state. As introduced, the bill would have prohibited supremacy clause of the United States Constitution the federal government from establishing a federal basically states that federal law preempts state law. If designation over land or water resources in this state a state adds a requirement that the federal without the approval of the Legislative Assembly by government needs approval to implement federal law concurrent resolution. in this state, that law is contrary to the supremacy clause and is preempted by federal law. These LEGISLATIVE HISTORY opponents cited an Attorney General Letter Opinion-- The bill's proponents included the North Dakota 2011-L-01--which opined that it is likely that Stockmen's Association, the North Dakota Farm 2011 House Bill No. 1286 would be preempted by Bureau, the Landowners Association of North Dakota, federal law. The opinion summarized House Bill and certain landowners. The proponents argued that No. 1286 as making it a crime for federal or state federal designations diminish property rights and are employees to apply federal law, including federal the first step in further regulation.
    [Show full text]