DOCSLIB.ORG

9.3 PISGAH 1 2 3 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 4 5 6 9.3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 9.3 PISGAH 2 3 4 9.3.1 Background and Summary of Impacts 5 6 7 9.3.1.1 General Information 8 9 The proposed Pisgah SEZ has a total area of 23,950 acres (97 km2) and is located in 10 San Bernardino County in southeastern California, about 100 mi (160 km) northeast of Los 11 Angeles (Figure 9.3.1.1-1). In 2008, the county population was 2,086,465. The nearest 12 population center to the SEZ is the City of Barstow, which is located about 25 mi (40 km) to 13 the west of the SEZ and had a 2008 population of 24,596. Interstate 40 (I-40) runs east–west 14 through the proposed Pisgah SEZ, bisecting it into a northern portion that contains about two- 15 thirds of the SEZ acreage and a southern portion with the remainder of the acreage. Access to the 16 SEZ from I-40 is available from exits at Fort Cady Road (to the west of the SEZ), Hector Road 17 (midway through the SEZ), and Pisgah Crater Road (at the eastern end of the SEZ). Hector Road 18 runs north–south through the middle of the SEZ, and a number of other local dirt roads cross the 19 SEZ. The National Trails Highway (historic U.S. 66) also passes through the SEZ as it runs 20 south of and parallel to I-40. The BNSF Railroad serves the area and traverses the SEZ from the 21 northwest to the southeast, running approximately parallel to and about 0.8 mi (1.3 km) north of 22 I-40. Three small public airports are within about 62 mi (100 km) of the SEZ. 23 24 Four existing high-capacity transmission lines run from the southwest to the northeast 25 through the eastern portion of the SEZ. It is assumed that these transmission lines could 26 potentially provide access from the SEZ to the transmission grid (see Section 9.3.1.2). There are 27 also other lower-capacity lines running through portions of the SEZ. 28 29 As of February 2010, there were two solar development applications with boundaries 30 wholly or partially within the Pisgah SEZ. One of these, covering approximately 8,600 acres 31 (35 km2) of the SEZ, is a BLM fast-track project for which environmental reviews have begun. 32 33 The proposed Pisgah SEZ lies within the western Mojave Desert region of the Basin 34 and Range physiographic province in southern California. The site is in a northwest–southeast 35 trending valley that lies to the southeast of the Mojave Valley, between the Cady Mountains to 36 the northeast and the Rodman and Lava Bed Mountains to the southwest. The SEZ has surface 37 elevations ranging between 1,800 and 2,300 ft (549 and 701 m), with a general drainage pattern 38 from east to west along the SEZ. The area is in the western portion of the Mojave Desert, which 39 has an extremely arid climate marked by mild winters and hot summers and large daily 40 temperature swings, with annual precipitation averaging about 3.8 in. (9.7 cm). Sediments of 41 Troy Dry Lake make up about 8% of the west central portion of the SEZ. 42 43 The proposed Pisgah SEZ and other relevant information are shown in Figure 9.3.1.1-1. 44 The criteria used to identify the SEZ as an appropriate location for solar development included 45 proximity to existing transmission lines or designated corridors, proximity to existing roads, a Draft Solar PEIS 9.3-1 December 2010 1 2 FIGURE 9.3.1.1-1 Proposed Pisgah SEZ Draft Solar PEIS 9.3-2 December 2010 1 slope of generally less than 2%, and an area of more than 2,500 acres (10 km2). In addition, the 2 area was identified as being relatively free of other types of conflicts, such as USFWS- 3 designated critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, ACECs, SRMAs, and 4 NLCS lands (see Section 2.2.2.2 for the complete list of exclusions). Although these classes 5 of restricted lands were excluded from the proposed Pisgah SEZ, other restrictions might be 6 appropriate. The analyses in the following sections evaluate the affected environment and 7 potential impacts associated with utility-scale solar energy development in the proposed SEZ 8 for important environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. 9 10 As initially announced in the Federal Register on June 30, 2009, the proposed Pisgah 11 SEZ encompassed 26,282 acres (106 km2). Subsequent to the study area scoping period, the 12 Pisgah SEZ boundaries were altered somewhat for several reasons. Border areas with irregularly 13 shaped boundaries were moved to match the section boundaries of the PLSS (BLM and 14 USFS 2010a) to facilitate the BLM’s administration of the SEZ area. Some small higher slope 15 areas were also added to the borders of the SEZ acreage; although these higher slope areas would 16 not be amenable to solar facilities, inclusion in the SEZ would facilitate BLM administration of 17 the area. In addition, some lands near the Pisgah SEZ donated to the BLM for conservation 18 purposes but inadvertently included in the published Pisgah study area were excluded from the 19 boundaries of the SEZ. The revised SEZ is approximately 2,300 acres (9 km2) smaller than the 20 original SEZ as published in June 2009. 21 22 23 9.3.1.2 Development Assumptions for the Impact Analysis 24 25 Maximum development of the proposed Pisgah SEZ was assumed to be 80% of the total 26 SEZ area over a period of 20 years, a maximum of 19,160 acres (78 km2). These values are 27 shown in Table 9.3.1.2-1, along with other development assumptions. Full development of the 28 Pisgah SEZ would allow development of facilities with an estimated total of 2,129 MW of 29 electrical power capacity if power tower, dish engine, or PV technologies were used, assuming 30 9 acres/MW (0.04 km2/MW) of land required, and an estimated 3,832 MW of power if solar 31 trough technologies were used, assuming 5 acres/MW (0.02 km2/MW) of land required. 32 33 Availability of transmission from SEZs to load centers will be an important consideration 34 for future development in SEZs. The nearest existing transmission lines are 230-kV and 250-kV 35 lines that run through the SEZ. It is possible that these existing lines could be used to provide 36 access from the SEZ to the transmission grid, but the 230- to 250-kV capacity of those lines 37 would be inadequate for 2,129 to 3,832 MW of new capacity (a 500-kV line can accommodate 38 approximately the load of one 700-MW facility). At full build-out capacity, it is clear that 39 substantial new transmission and/or upgrades of existing transmission lines would be required to 40 bring electricity from the proposed Pisgah SEZ to load centers; however, at this time the location 41 and size of such new transmission facilities are unknown. Generic impacts of transmission and 42 associated infrastructure construction and of line upgrades for various resources are discussed in 43 Chapter 5. Project-specific analyses would need to identify the specific impacts of new 44 transmission construction and line upgrades for any projects proposed within the SEZ. 45 46 Draft Solar PEIS 9.3-3 December 2010 TABLE 9.3.1.2-1 Proposed Pisgah SEZ Development Acreages, Maximum Solar MW Output, Access Roads, and Transmission Line ROWs Assumed Distance and Assumed Maximum Distance to Capacity of Area of Distance to Total Acreage and SEZ Output Nearest State, Nearest Transmission Nearest Assumed for Various U.S. or Existing Line ROW Designated Developed Acreage Solar Interstate Transmission and Road Transmission (80% of Total) Technologies Highway Line ROW Corridord 23,950 acres and 2,129 MWb Adjacent Within SEZ, 0 acres and Within SEZe 19,160 acresa 3,832 MWc (I-40) 230 and 500 kV 0 acres a To convert acres to km2, multiply by 0.004047. b Maximum power output if the SEZ were fully developed using power tower, dish engine, or PV technologies, assuming 9 acres/MW (0.04 km2/MW) of land required. c Maximum power output if the SEZ were fully developed using solar trough technologies, assuming 5 acres/MW (0.02 km2/MW) of land required. d BLM-designated corridors are developed for federal land use planning purposes only and are not applicable to state-owned or privately owned land. e A Section 368 federally designated energy corridor crosses through the SEZ along I-40. 1 2 3 For the purposes of analysis in this PEIS, it was assumed that the four existing high- 4 capacity transmission lines (230 and 500 kV) that run through the proposed Pisgah SEZ 5 could provide access to the transmission grid, and thus no additional acreage disturbance for 6 transmission line access was assessed. Access to the existing transmission lines was assumed, 7 without additional information on whether these lines would be available to for connection of 8 future solar facilities. If a connecting transmission line were constructed in the future to connect 9 facilities within the SEZ to a different off-site grid location from the one assumed here, site 10 developers would need to determine the impacts from the construction and operation of that 11 line. In addition, developers would need to determine the impacts of line upgrades if they 12 were needed.
Recommended publications
  • California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    California Vegetation Map in Support of the DRECP

    CALIFORNIA VEGETATION MAP IN SUPPORT OF THE DESERT RENEWABLE ENERGY CONSERVATION PLAN (2014-2016 ADDITIONS) John Menke, Edward Reyes, Anne Hepburn, Deborah Johnson, and Janet Reyes Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Renewable Energy Program and the California Energy Commission Final Report May 2016 Prepared by: Primary Authors John Menke Edward Reyes Anne Hepburn Deborah Johnson Janet Reyes Report Graphics Ben Johnson Cover Page Photo Credits: Joshua Tree: John Fulton Blue Palo Verde: Ed Reyes Mojave Yucca: John Fulton Kingston Range, Pinyon: Arin Glass Aerial Information Systems, Inc. 112 First Street Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 793-9493 [email protected] in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program 1807 13th Street, Suite 202 Sacramento, CA 95811 and California Native Plant Society 2707 K Street, Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 95816 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Funding for this project was provided by: California Energy Commission US Bureau of Land Management California Wildlife Conservation Board California Department of Fish and Wildlife Personnel involved in developing the methodology and implementing this project included: Aerial Information Systems: Lisa Cotterman, Mark Fox, John Fulton, Arin Glass, Anne Hepburn, Ben Johnson, Debbie Johnson, John Menke, Lisa Morse, Mike Nelson, Ed Reyes, Janet Reyes, Patrick Yiu California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Diana Hickson, Todd Keeler‐Wolf, Anne Klein, Aicha Ougzin, Rosalie Yacoub California
  • 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles

    1917 Gossip Column & News Articles

    TEMECULA VALLEY HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1917 Gossip Column & News Articles January 5, 1917 After spending a few days in Los Angeles, Paul Clark of the Pauba Ranch returned home the first of the week. Eila Kolb, who is attending the Riverside business college, spent the holidays at home. After spending a very pleasant visit with his parents Frank Ramos returned to Riverside last Saturday to continue his studies. Dr. L. L. Roripaugh of Auld was in town the other day treating his friends to cigars. The doctor being newly wed his many friends wish him and his bride a very happy future. Curtis Stevenson and wife of Pechanga were first of the week visitors at the Ventura Arviso home. Francis McCarrell drove over here after freight for the Aguanga store. E. C. Tripp of Aguanga was in town the last of the week hauling lumber. Mrs. John B. Kelly returned home Saturday from Los Angeles where she had a pleasant two weeks' visit with her sister, Mrs. John N. Carr. Charles Swain and Juan Munoa have moved to the Harvey place, where they will plant barley this winter. The dance given at the Bank hall Saturday night was attended by several from the surrounding country. D. S. Woosley of Escondido was in town the first of the week doing some missionary work. A large number of the young people from town attended the dance at the Murrieta Hot Springs. George Studley has succeeded J. S. Felix as foreman of the cowboys at the Pauba Ranch. Mr. Studley has been a steady hand at the ranch for four years.
  • Newberry Springs BUREAU of LAND MANAGEMENT

    Newberry Springs BUREAU of LAND MANAGEMENT

    BLM SPECIAL EDITION 1998 EXAMPLES OF AGENCY SIGNS SURFACE MANAGEMENT STATUS DESERT ACCESS GUIDE Newberry Springs BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT USDA FOREST SERVICE I:100,000-Scale topographic map showing: • Highways, roads and other manmade structures • Water features • Contours and elevations in meters • Recreation sites • Coverage of former desert access guide #11 Johnson Valley NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR OF f AND MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS Edited and published by the Bureau of Land Management National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, Colorado in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management California State Office. Planimetry partially revised by BLM from various source material. Revised information not field checked. Base map prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey. Compiled from USGS 1:24,000 and l:62,500-scale I -i >|i <i ! . • Kips dated 1953 1971, and from advance T" materials. Partially revised from aerial photographs taken 1976 and other source data. Bev'sed information not CALIFORNIA STATE field checked. Map edited 1977. Map photoinspected VEHICULAR RECREATION AREA using 1989 photographs. No major culture or drainage changes found. Help protect your public lands by observing posted Projection and 10,000-meter grid, zone 11: Universal OHV designations. Watch for OHV signs and read Transverse Mercator. 25,000-foot grid ticks based on them carefully. California coordinate system, zone 5. 1927 North American Datum. For more information contact the BLM, USDA Forest Service, National Park Service, California State Park, Land lines are omitted in areas of extensive tract surveys. or California State Motorized Vechicle Recreation Area Office (see back panel for address and phone There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of numbers).
  • UC Natural Reserve System Transect Publication 18:1

    UC Natural Reserve System Transect Publication 18:1

    University of California TransectS u m m e r 2 0 0 0 • Volume 18, No.1 A few words from the NRS systemwide office oday the NRS’s 33 reserve sites,* encompassing roughly T 130,000 acres, are protected and managed in support of teaching, research, and outreach activities. The only people who live there now are a handful of reserve personnel — mostly resident managers and stewards — who care for these wildlands, their resources and facilities, and who enable the teaching and research to continue across California. But this was not always the case. Long before even the concept of Cali- fornia, other people lived out their lives on these lands. Hundreds and thou- sands of years ago, other people were finding ways to feed, clothe, shelter, Photo by Susan Gee Rumsey and protect themselves, trying their The past is nonrenewable: Continued on page 32 Natural reserves protect rich cultural resources 4 Firsthand impressions of a Santa Cruz Island dig ’ve done research at the UC Natural Reserve System’s site on Santa Cruz Island for over 20 years, including archaeological field schools (10 summers) 7 Archaeology sheds light on and National Science Foundation-supported research (6 years) since 1985. I Big Creek mussel mystery I also did my Ph.D. on the island (1980-83) and recorded the major chert quar- 17 Of mammoths and men ries of El Montañon and the microblade production industries in the China Harbor area. 20 Picturing the past in the East Mojave Desert Santa Cruz Island is a remarkable place, and its pre-European cultural resources 25 And a useful glossary of are among the most important and exceptionally well-preserved in the United anthropology terms, too! States.
  • Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report

    Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report

    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices Appendix E: Cultural Resources Technical Report June 2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN DRAFT PEIR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO Appendices This page intentionally left blank. PlaceWorks CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 2019 PREPARED FOR PlaceWorks PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants E-1 E-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTYWIDE PLAN, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, California 92707 Attn: Colin Drukker Prepared by Alex Wesson, B.A., Chris Millington, M.A., RPA and Nicole Kromarek, B.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 W. Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com Contact: Chris Millington, Project Manager SWCA Project No. 31474 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 18-270 February 2019 E-3 This page intentionally left blank. E-4 Cultural Resource Technical Report for the San Bernardino Countywide Plan, San Bernardino County, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose and Scope: In support of the forthcoming San Bernardino Countywide Plan, PlaceWorks retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to summarize the existing conditions of cultural resources within the study area, evaluate potential impacts that could occur to these resources because of the Countywide Plan, and to provide mitigation measures for potential impacts. The study area is composed of all unincorporated lands that are subject to the County of San Bernardino’s land use jurisdiction; also referred to as the “County Control Area,” the study area is approximately 1,623,988 acres (2,537 square miles) in area, or 12.627 percent of the approximately 12,861,026-acre (20,105- square mile) county.
  • Desert Bighorn Sheep Report

    Desert Bighorn Sheep Report

    California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 6 Desert Bighorn Sheep Status Report November 2013 to October 2016 A summary of desert bighorn sheep population monitoring and management by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Authors: Paige Prentice, Ashley Evans, Danielle Glass, Richard Ianniello, and Tom Stephenson Inland Deserts Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife Desert Bighorn Status Report 2013-2016 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Inland Deserts Region 787 N. Main Street Ste. 220 Bishop, CA 93514 www.wildlife.ca.gov This document was finalized on September 6, 2018 Page 2 of 40 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Desert Bighorn Status Report 2013-2016 Table of Contents Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4 I. Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................ 6 A. Data Collection Methods .................................................................................................................. 7 1. Capture Methods .......................................................................................................................... 7 2. Survey Methods ............................................................................................................................ 8 B. Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................... 10 1. Capture Data ..............................................................................................................................
  • Revised 2019 Mining/ Land Reclamation Plan and Plan of Operations

    Revised 2019 Mining/ Land Reclamation Plan and Plan of Operations

    REVISED 2019 MINING/ LAND RECLAMATION PLAN AND PLAN OF OPERATIONS FORT CADY PROJECT NEWBERRY SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA San Bernardino County No. 94M-04 Bureau of Land Management Nos. CACA33044; CAMC 20175 CA MINE ID # 91-36-0124 Prepared for: San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415 and Bureau of Land Management Barstow Field Office 2601 Barstow Road Barstow, CA 92311 Prepared by: FORT CADY CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 16195 Siskiyou, Suite 210 Apple Valley, CA 92307 MAY 1993 REVISED APRIL 2019 Approved by County of San Bernardino - July 10, 1994 Approved by BLM Barstow – December 30, 1994 Revised 2019 Plans Fort Cady Project Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 5 Glossary of Terms ..................................................................................................................................... 6 I. Revised 2019 Mining Plan & Plan of Operations ................................................................................. 8 A. Request for Revisions - 2019 ...............................................................................................................
  • Biological Goals and Objectives

    Biological Goals and Objectives

    Appendix C Biological Goals and Objectives Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C.1 Process for Developing the Biological Goals and Objectives This section outlines the process for drafting the Biological Goals and Objectives (BGOs) and describes how they inform the conservation strategy for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP or Plan). The conceptual model shown in Exhibit C-1 illustrates the structure of the BGOs used during the planning process. This conceptual model articulates how Plan-wide BGOs and other information (e.g., stressors) contribute to the development of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) associated with Covered Activities, which are monitored for effectiveness and adapted as necessary to meet the DRECP Step-Down Biological Objectives. Terms used in Exhibit C-1 are defined in Section C.1.1. Exhibit C-1 Conceptual Model for BGOs Development Appendix C C-1 August 2014 Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BGOs follow the three-tiered approach based on the concepts of scale: landscape, natural community, and species. The following broad biological goals established in the DRECP Planning Agreement guided the development of the BGOs: Provide for the long-term conservation and management of Covered Species within the Plan Area. Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Plan Area. The following provides the approach to developing the BGOs. Section C.2 provides the landscape, natural community, and Covered Species BGOs. Specific mapping information used to develop the BGOs is provided in Section C.3.
  • Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs

    Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs

    Using Local Knowledge Graph Construction to Scale Seq2Seq Models to Multi-Document Inputs Angela Fan Claire Gardent Chloe´ Braud Antoine Bordes FAIR / LORIA CNRS / LORIA CNRS / LORIA FAIR angelafan,[email protected] claire.gardent,[email protected] Abstract Query-based open-domain NLP tasks require information synthesis from long and diverse web results. Current approaches extrac- tively select portions of web text as input to Sequence-to-Sequence models using meth- ods such as TF-IDF ranking. We propose constructing a local graph structured knowl- edge base for each query, which compresses the web search information and reduces re- dundancy. We show that by linearizing the graph into a structured input sequence, models can encode the graph representations within a standard Sequence-to-Sequence setting. For two generative tasks with very long text in- put, long-form question answering and multi- document summarization, feeding graph rep- resentations as input can achieve better perfor- mance than using retrieved text portions. 1 Introduction Effective information synthesis is at the core of many Natural Language Processing applica- Figure 1: Multi-Document Input to Linearized Graph tions, such as open-domain question answering Multi-document input resulting from web search queries are converted to a graph structured knowledge base using coref- and multi-document summarization. In such tasks, erence resolution and information extraction, then linearized a fundamental challenge is the ability to distill rel- into a sequence for Seq2Seq models. Color indicates coref- evant knowledge from hundreds of thousands of erence resolution. Node weight is indicated by circle radius and edge weight by line thickness.
  • Cultural Resources

    Cultural Resources

    Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS CHAPTER III.8. CULTURAL RESOURCES III.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES This chapter presents the environmental setting/affected environment for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) for cultural resources. More than 32,000 cultural resources are known in the Plan Area and occur in every existing environmental context, from mountain crests to dry lake beds, and include both surface and sub-surface deposits. Cultural resources are categorized as buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts under both federal law (for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]) and under California state law (for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]). Historic properties are cultural resources included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior and per the NRHP eligibility criteria (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 60.4). See Section III.8.1.1 for more information on federal regulations and historic properties. Historical resources are cultural resources that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 4850) or that meet other criteria specified in CEQA (see Section III.8.1.2). See Section III.8.1.2 for more information on state regulations and historical resources. This chapter discusses three types of cultural resources classified by their origins: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic. Prehistoric cultural resources are associated with the human occupation and use of Cali- fornia prior to prolonged European contact.
  • Geomorphological Evolution and Chronology of the Eruptive Activity of the Columba and Cuevas Volcanoes (Campo De Calatrava Volcanic Field, Ciudad Real, Central Spain)

    Geomorphological Evolution and Chronology of the Eruptive Activity of the Columba and Cuevas Volcanoes (Campo De Calatrava Volcanic Field, Ciudad Real, Central Spain)

    Accepted Manuscript Geomorphological evolution and chronology of the eruptive activity of the Columba and Cuevas volcanoes (Campo de Calatrava Volcanic Field, Ciudad Real, Central Spain) Miguel Ángel Poblete Piedrabuena, Joan Martí Molist, Salvador Beato Bergua, José Luis Marino Alfonso PII: S0169-555X(19)30125-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.03.026 Reference: GEOMOR 6720 To appear in: Geomorphology Received date: 4 December 2018 Revised date: 14 March 2019 Accepted date: 25 March 2019 Please cite this article as: M.Á.P. Piedrabuena, J.M. Molist, S.B. Bergua, et al., Geomorphological evolution and chronology of the eruptive activity of the Columba and Cuevas volcanoes (Campo de Calatrava Volcanic Field, Ciudad Real, Central Spain), Geomorphology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.03.026 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Geomorphological evolution and chronology of the eruptive activity of the Columba and Cuevas volcanoes (Campo de Calatrava Volcanic Field, Ciudad Real, Central Spain) Miguel Ángel Poblete Piedrabuena1*, Joan Martí Molist2, Salvador Beato Bergua1, José Luis Marino Alfonso1 Department of Geography, University of Oviedo, Campus de El Milán, C/Amparo Pedregal, 5, Oviedo-33011, Spain.
  • Protest of West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (BLM/CA/DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008-EIS)

    Protest of West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (BLM/CA/DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008-EIS)

    May 28, 2019 BLM Director (210) Attn: Protest Coordinator, WO-210 20 M Street SE Room 2134LM Washington, DC 20003 (Submitted via ePlanning project website: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/comments/commentSubmission.do?commentPeriodId=75787) Re: Protest of West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (BLM/CA/DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008-EIS) Dear BLM Director: Defenders of Wildlife, the Desert Tortoise Council and the California Native Plant Society hereby protest the West Mojave (WEMO) Route Network Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) (BLM/CA/DOI-BLM-CA-D080-2018-0008-EIS), released on April 26, 2019. Our protest includes responses to the required information as per 43 CFR 1610.5-2. 1. Name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest: For Defenders of Wildlife: Jeff Aardahl California Representative Defenders of Wildlife 980 9th Street, Suite 1730 Sacramento, CA 95814 (707) 884-1169 [email protected] 1 Interest of Defenders of Wildlife: Defenders of Wildlife (Defenders) is a national wildlife conservation organization founded in 1947, with 1.8 million members and supporters in the U.S., including 279,000 in California. Defenders is dedicated to protecting wild animals and plants in their natural communities. To accomplish this, it employs science, public education, legislative advocacy, litigation, and proactive on-the-ground solutions to impede the loss of biological diversity and ongoing habitat degradation. Defenders has participated in all aspects of the West Mojave Plan from its inception through the most recent Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement, through submitting comment letters and recommendations for management of off-highway vehicle use and livestock grazing, and protection of habitat for numerous special status species, such as the threatened desert tortoise and BLM Sensitive Mohave ground squirrel.