DOCSLIB.ORG

Record of Decision for the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Record of Decision for the Eldorado-Ivanpah Transmission Needles Field Office and Las Vegas Field Office Office Field Vegas Las and Office Field Needles BLM RECORD OF DECISION for the Eldorado–Ivanpah Transmission Line Project MAY 2011 NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management Needles Field Office Las Vegas Field Office 1303 South Highway 95 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Needles, CA 92363 Las Vegas, NV 89130 This page intentionally left blank RECORD OF DECISION for the Eldorado Ivanpah Transmission Project Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Impact Statement DOI FES 10-56 Case File Number: CACA-49834(NVN-43265) Eldorado Ivanpah Transmission Project Decision to Grant Right-of-Way Bureau of Land Management Needles Field Office 1303 South Highway 95 Needles, CA 92363 and Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 May 2011 This page intentionally left blank ELDORADO–IVANPAH TRANSMISSION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Decisions and Authority ........................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Description of Powerline Project ................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Application/Applicant .................................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 1-3 1.5 EIS Availability ........................................................................................................................... 1-3 1.6 Authority under FLPMA and NEPA ............................................................................................ 1-4 1.7 Information Still Under Review since the Final Environmental Impact Statement ...................... 1-5 1.8 Decisions Being Made (40 CFR 1505. 2(a)) .............................................................................. 1-6 1.8.1 Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way Grant ....................................................... 1-6 1.8.2 No Revisions to Open Off Highway Vehicle Routes .................................................... 1-7 1.8.3 What is Not Being Approved ........................................................................................ 1-7 1.9 Right-of-Way Requirements (43 USC 1764; 1765) .................................................................... 1-7 1.10 Summary of Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 1-7 1.10.1 Summary of the Comparison of Environmental Impacts .............................................. 1-8 1.10.1.1 Transmission Routing Alternatives ............................................................. 1-8 1.10.1.2 Telecommunication Alternatives ................................................................. 1-8 1.10.1.3 No Project / No Action Alternative ............................................................... 1-8 2. Mitigation and Monitoring ........................................................ 2-1 2.1 Required Mitigation .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Monitoring and Enforcement (40 CFR 1505.2(c)) ...................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Mitigation Measures Not Adopted (40 CFR 1505.2(c)) .............................................................. 2-2 2.4 Statement of All Practicable Mitigation Adopted ........................................................................ 2-2 3. Management Considerations ................................................... 3-1 3.1 Decision Rationale ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Respond to Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Achieve Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Required Actions ........................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.3 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................... 3-2 3.2.4 Clean Air Act as Amended in 1990 .............................................................................. 3-2 3.2.5 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.6 Incorporation of Resource Management Plan Considerations ..................................... 3-3 3.3 Legal Land Description of EITP .................................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Statement of No Unnecessary or Undue Degradation (43 USC 1732(b)) .................................. 3-6 3.5 Statement of Technical and Financial Capability (43 USC 1764(j)) ........................................... 3-7 3.6 Relationship to BLM and other Agency Plans, Programs, and Policies ..................................... 3-7 3.6.1 Tribal Consultation ....................................................................................................... 3-7 3.6.2 FWS Section 7 Consultation ........................................................................................ 3-8 3.6.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ......................................................................... 3-9 3.6.4 Section 106 and the Programmatic Agreement ........................................................... 3-9 3.7 Consultation with Other Federal Agencies ................................................................................. 3-9 3.7.1 Clark County, Nevada .................................................................................................. 3-9 MAY 2011 iii RECORD OF DECISION ELDORADO–IVANPAH TRANSMISSION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS 3.7.2 Nevada Department of Wildlife .................................................................................. 3-10 3.7.3 United States Environmental Protection Agency ....................................................... 3-10 3.7.4 Federal Aviation Administration ................................................................................. 3-10 3.7.5 National Park Service ................................................................................................ 3-10 3.7.6 Unites States Army Corps of Engineers ..................................................................... 3-10 3.8 LUP Conformance (43 CFR 1610.5-3(a)) ................................................................................ 3-10 3.8.1 California Desert Conservation Area Plan ................................................................. 3-10 3.8.2 Las Vegas Resource Management Plan.................................................................... 3-11 3.8.3 Need for a Plan Amendment ...................................................................................... 3-11 3.9 Adequacy of NEPA Analysis .................................................................................................... 3-12 4. Alternatives (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) ............................................... 4-1 4.1 Alternatives Fully Analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS ........................................................................ 4-1 4.1.1 Transmission Line Routing Alternatives ....................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Telecommunication Alternatives .................................................................................. 4-3 4.1.3 No Project / No Action Alternative ................................................................................ 4-4 4.2 Agency Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................... 4-5 4.3 Environmentally Preferable Alternative ...................................................................................... 4-5 5. Agency and Public Involvement .............................................. 5-1 5.1 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Scoping Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 Draft EIS and Public Comment Period ....................................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Final EIS ..................................................................................................................................... 5-3 5.5 Summary of Consultation with Other Agencies and Entities ...................................................... 5-3 5.5.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Consultation ................................................................. 5-3 5.5.2 National Historic Preservation Act Consultation ..........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NPCA Comments on Proposed Silurian
    Stanford MillsLegalClinic Environmental Law Clinic Crown Quadrangle LawSchool 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 Tel 650 725-8571 Fax 650 723-4426 www.law.stanford.edu September 9, 2014 Via Electronic Mail and Federal Express James G. Kenna, State Director Bureau of Land Management California State Office 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1623 Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 978-4400 [email protected] Katrina Symons Field Manager Bureau of Land Management Barstow Field Office 2601 Barstow Road Barstow, CA 92311 (760) 252-6004 [email protected] Dear State Director Kenna and Field Manager Symons: Enclosed please find comments by the National Parks Conservation Association (“NPCA”) on the solar and wind projects proposed by Iberdrola Renewables, Inc., in Silurian Valley, California. We understand that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) is currently considering whether to grant the Silurian Valley Solar Project a variance under the October 2012 Record of Decision for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. We also understand that BLM is currently evaluating the Silurian Valley Wind Project under the National Environmental Policy Act. As the enclosed comments make clear, NPCA has serious concerns about the proposed projects’ compliance with applicable laws and policies, and about their potentially significant adverse effects on the Silurian Valley and surrounding region. We thank you for your consideration of these comments. NPCA looks forward to participating further in the administrative processes associated with the proposed projects. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Hook, Certified Law Student Community Law ❖ Criminal Defense ❖ Environmental Law ❖ Immigrants’ Rights ❖ International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution ❖ Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation ❖ Organizations and Transactions ❖ Religious Liberty ❖Supreme Court Litigation ❖ Youth and Education Law Project Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Pipeline and Processing Fac... - Pipeline Projects with Length Greater Than 20 Miles
    12/29/2015 Pipeline and Processing Fac... - Pipeline projects with Length Greater than 20 Miles Pipeline projects with DEC-29-2015 Pipeline and Processing Facilities : SAVED REPORTS Length Greater than 1:37 PM 20 Miles Pipeline projects with Length Greater than 20 Miles Holding Company or Parent Operating Company: Project Status Project Project Name: Length Organization: Type: (New Miles) AK (6 Pipeline projects) Energia Cura Fairbanks Pipeline Doubtful New Arctic Fox (Fairbanks Pipeline) 443 Company Linc Energy Linc Energy On New Umiat Oil Field Pipeline 80 Hold/Postponed Alaska Housing Finance Alaska Gasline On New Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) 737 Corporation Development Hold/Postponed Corporation BP BP Under New Point Thomson Gas Field 22 Construction NovaGold Resources Inc. Donlin Gold, LLC Advanced New Donlin Gold 312 Development Alaska LNG Early New Alaska LNG (AKLNG) 800 Development TOT 2,394 AL (6 Pipeline projects) Southern Company Alabama Power Under New Gaston Natural Gas Pipeline 30 Construction Spectra Energy Spectra Energy Advanced New Sabal Trail 515 Development Williams Company Transcontinental Gas Early New Hillabee Expansion Project Phase 1 20 Pipeline Company LLC Development Miller Energy Resources Early New Trans - Foreland Pipeline (TFPL) system 23 Development Laclede Gas Alagasco On-going Replacement Alagasco Pipeline replacement program 850 PRP Williams Company Transcontinental Gas Early New Hillabee Expansion Project Phase 2 and 3 24 Pipeline Company LLC Development TOT 1,462 Alberta (43 Pipeline projects) TransCanada Imperial Oil Early New Mackenzie Gas Project 758 Development Enbridge Inc. Enbridge Income Fund Advanced New Northern Gateway Pipeline (westward 731 Development crude for export) TransCanada TransCanada Advanced New Keystone XL 1,661 Development Enhance Energy Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 INVESTOR DAY January 27, 2021 Disclosure Forward-Looking Statements / Non-GAAP Financial Measures / Industry & Market Data
    2021 INVESTOR DAY January 27, 2021 Disclosure Forward-looking statements / non-GAAP financial measures / industry & market data General – The information contained in this presentation does not purport to be all‐inclusive or to contain all information that prospective investors may require. Prospective investors are encouraged to conduct their own analysis and review of information contained in this presentation as well as important additional information through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC”) EDGAR system at www.sec.gov and on our website at www.kindermorgan.com. Forward-Looking Statements – This presentation includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements include any statement that does not relate strictly to historical or current facts and include statements accompanied by or using words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “forecast,” “strategy,” “outlook,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “may,” “will,” “shall,” and “long-term”. In particular, statements, express or implied, concerning future actions, conditions or events, including long term demand for our assets and services, opportunities related to alternative energy sources, future operating results or the ability to generate revenues, income or cash flow or to pay dividends are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. There is no assurance that any of the actions, events or results of the forward-looking statements will occur, or if any of them do, what impact they will have on our results of operations or financial condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Availability For
    NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE CALNEV (KINDER-MORGAN) PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT (SCH #2008031071) The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), together with the County of San Bernardino (County), California, has prepared a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project from Colton, Calif. to Las Vegas, Nev. The BLM and the County of San Bernardino have prepared the EIS/EIR to evaluate potential impacts associated with the proposed Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project and Alternatives. This project is proposed by Calnev Pipeline, LLC, a subsidiary of Kinder-Morgan Energy Partners. The Draft EIS/EIR for the Calnev Pipeline Expansion Project is available for public review and comment. The Pipeline Expansion Project includes the construction, operation, and maintenance of 233 miles of new 16-inch diameter pipeline on approximately 2,841 acres of land under multiple ownership (BLM manages 1,239 acres of the land the proposed pipeline would cross) from the North Colton Terminal to the Bracken Junction near McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, which would parallel the existing system for most of the route (see attached map). In addition to the new pipeline, the proposed project would include a new pump station, electrical substation, and ancillary facilities near Baker, Calif.; a new 3-mile lateral from the Bracken Junction to McCarran International Airport; and new or modified connections to new or modified laterals, valves, and ancillary modifications. The proposed pipelines primarily traverse undeveloped lands administered by the BLM. Other federally managed lands in the proposed project area include land under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Form 10-K Kinder Morgan, Inc
    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 _____________ Form 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) [X] OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) [ ] OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _____to_____ Commission file number: 001-35081 Kinder Morgan, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 80-0682103 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 1001 Louisiana Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002 (Address of principal executive offices) (zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 713-369-9000 ____________ Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Class P Common Stock New York Stock Exchange Warrants to Purchase Class P Common Stock New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933. Yes No o Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yes o No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment / Final Environmental Impact Statement for Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System
    CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT / FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR IVANPAH SOLAR ELECTRIC GENERATING SYSTEM FEIS-10-31 JULY 2010 BLM/CA/ES-2010-010+1793 In Reply Refer To: In reply refer to: 1610-5.G.1.4 2800lCACA-48668 Dear Reader: Enclosed is the proposed California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement (CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS) for the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System (ISEGS) project. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared the CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS for the ISEGS project in consultation with cooperating agencies and California State agencies, taking into account public comments received during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. The proposed plan amendment adds the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System project site to those identified in the current California Desert Conservation Area Plan, as amended, for solar energy production. The decision on the ISEGS project will be to approve, approve with modification, or deny issuance of the rights-of-way grants applied for by Solar Partners I, 11, IV, and VIII. This CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS for the ISEGS project has been developed in accordance with NEPA and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The CDCA Plan Amendment is based on the Mitigated Ivanpah 3 Alternative which was identified as the Agency Preferred Alternative in the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for ISEGS, which was released on April 16,2010. The CDCA Plan Amendment/FEIS contains the proposed plan amendment, a summary of changes made between the DEIS, SDEIS and FEIS for ISEGS, an analysis of the impacts of the proposed decisions, and a summary of the written and oral comments received during the public review periods for the DEIS and for the SDEIS, and responses to comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Nt]Hetic Fneis
    3 a1t)Iirccs)llhi Sr nt]hetic fneis OIL SHALE 0 COAL o OIL SANDS VOLUME 18 - NUMBER 2 JUNE 1981 QUARTERLY c0 0 : ty J - - g r Of Mines ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION ®THE PACE COMPANY CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS, INC. ® Rcg. U.S. P.I. OFF. Cameron Synthetic Fuels Report is published by the Rocky Mountain Division of The Pace Company Consultants & Engineers, Inc. as a multi-client service and is intended for the sole use of the clients or organizations affiliated with clients b, virtue of a relationship equivalent to 51 percent or greater ownership. Cameron Synthetic Fuels Report is protected by the copyright laws of the United States; reproduction of any part of the publication requires the express permission of the Rocky Mountain Division of the Pace Company Consultants & Engineers, Inc. The Rocky Mountain Division has provided energy consulting and engineering services since 1955. The Division's experience includes resource evaluation, process development and design, systems planning, marketing studies, licensor comparisons, environmental planning, and economic analysis. The Division also has an extensive Information Services Department which publishes a variety of periodic and other reports analyzing developments in the energy field. ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION THE PACE COMPANY CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS. INC. S. FRANK CULBERSON. PRESIDENT TED C. BORER, MANAGER-INFORMATION SERVICES SYNTHETIC FUELS STAFF RHONDA J. DETAMORE AGNES K. DUBBERLY THOMAS A. HENDRICKSON CHARLES 0. HOOK EUGENE L. JOJOLA KENNETH E. STANFIELD WELANA WENDORFF CONTRIBUTORS JULIE H. SMITH CHERRY CREEK PLAZA II 650 S. CHERRY ST., SUITE 400 DENVER, COLORADO 80222 (303) 321-3919 CONTENTS HIGHLIGHTS A-1 I. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Reagan Administration's Fossil Energy Policies and FY '82 Fossil Energy Budget Reviewed i-i President Reagan Serious about Regulatory Reform 1-4 Third Biennial National Energy Plan (NEP-11) Being Formulated ...........
    [Show full text]
  • Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 F O R M 10‑Q [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012 or [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _____to_____ Commission file number: 1‑11234 KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 76-0380342 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 500 Dallas Street, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas 77002 (Address of principal executive offices)(zip code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: 713‑369‑9000 Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes [X] No [ ] Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.
    [Show full text]
  • Normally Pressured Lance Natural Gas Development Project Wyoming - Pinedale Field Office August 2018
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Normally Pressured Lance Natural Gas Development Project Wyoming - Pinedale Field Office August 2018 Record of Decision Estimated Total Lead Agency Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this Document: $4,726,463 The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. The BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM/WY/PL-18/011+1310 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 APPROVAL ............................................................................................................................1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................2 3.0 THE DECISION .....................................................................................................................3 3.1 Description of Development ..............................................................................................3 3.1.1 Development Area 1 ...............................................................................................4 3.1.2 Development Area 2 ...............................................................................................4 3.1.3 Development Area 3 ...............................................................................................4 3.2 Development in Sage-Grouse Habitat ...............................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Kurt A. Goebel, CEM Senior Vice President/Environmental Division Manager
    Kurt A. Goebel, CEM Senior Vice President/Environmental Division Manager Mr. Goebel is a Senior Vice President, Principal Geologist, and EDUCATION Environmental Division Manager. Mr. Goebel has been with . M.S. Geology, University of Converse since 1991. He understands the business community Nevada, Las Vegas, 1989 . B.S. Geology, Western Illinois and has worked with numerous community leaders and clients, University, 1985 providing solutions for a wide range of environmental issues. Mr. Goebel understands the need to satisfy regulatory REGISTRATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS requirements for compliance, yet he works in the clients’ . State of Nevada, Certified interest, to minimize risk and provide quality technical service. Environmental Manager, EM-1231 His clients include casino/hotel facilities, small and large . 40-Hour Health and Safety industry, local government (city, county, state), private Training and 8-Hour Refresher developers, and property managers. He is a Nevada Certified . 8-Hour Health and Safety Supervisors Training Environmental Manager and is well versed at interfacing with . Professional Geologist – Nevada State regulators on the client’s behalf. Registered Hazardous Substances Professional, Areas of Experience RHSP-294 Asbestos Management PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS Brownfields Grants and Assessment Dust Monitoring & Air Quality . American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), SGAC Groundwater Assessment & Monitoring Environmental Subcommittee Hazardous Materials Management Chairman Health and Safety Compliance . National Association Industrial and Indoor Air Quality and Industrial Hygiene Office Properties (NAIOP), Landfill Management Government Affairs Committee Phase I & II Environmental Assessments . International Right of Way Soil Gas Surveys Association (IRWA)- Vice Chair . Risk Management Association Regulatory Compliance (RMA) Risk Assessments . American Institute of Architects Remedial Actions (AIA), past member Vapor Encroachment .
    [Show full text]
  • Desertxpress Final EIS Chapte
    6.0 References EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and County of San Bernardino. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow-Add Southbound Mixed- Flow Lane. May 2001. Council on Environmental Quality, ―Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations,‖ 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 1981). Available at: <http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P1.HTM>. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, Section 1502.12 and 1505.2(b). Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, 64 FR 28546 (May 26, 1999). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332. ALTERNATIVES Bratton, Don, Staubach Company; acting property managers for BNSF Railroad. Personal communication, January 19, 2007. Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration, and County of San Bernardino. Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow, Add Southbound Mixed Flow Lane. May 2001. Cambridge Systematics. DesertXpress Ridership Forecast Review. January 2008. Congressional Research Service. High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States. December 8, 2009. Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, 1981. Glaab, Christine, Surface Transportation Board librarian. Personal communication, January 4, 2007. Korve Engineering. DesertXpress Plan and Profile Drawings. November 2006. URS Corporation. Desert Xpress Updated Ridership and Revenue Study. December 2005. March 2011 Final EIS 6-1 DesertXpress 6.0 References LAND USE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS Bureau of Land Management. Defense Advanced Research Projects (DARPA) Grand Challenge Environmental Assessment. December 2003. <http://www.blm.gov/ca/pdfs/barstow_pdfs/darpa/chapter_3_affected_environ ment.pdfBLM 2003>. Accessed 2008. Bureau of Land Management. Land Use Planning. West Mojave Plan. 2006. Calico Ghost Town. <http://www.calicotown.com>. Accessed 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Assurance Daily April 6, 2006 U.S
    Energy Assurance Daily April 6, 2006 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ENERGY ASSURANCE DAILY Thursday, April 06, 2006 Electricity Tuscarawas and Meigs Favored for Non-polluting Coal-fired Power Plant in Ohio Ohio FutureGen Task Force, a group of state agencies, announced that the favored locations for the $1 billion nonpolluting coal-fired power plant, to be built by the U.S. Department of Energy and the FutureGen Industrial Alliance, are in Tuscarawas and Meigs counties in Ohio. Sites in other parts of Ohio have been rejected. The experimental plant would turn coal into a gas of mostly hydrogen, and pollutants would be removed. The hydrogen gas would be generated to produce electricity and power fuel cells. Energy Central Daily, April 6, 2006. http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/14267099.htm?source=rss&channel=ohio_news Duke Chooses South Carolina Site for New Nuclear Plant Duke Energy has selected Cherokee County, South Carolina, for the location of the latest nuclear project, which could produce over 2,200 megawatts. Reuters, 09:46 April 6, 2006. Sunrise Powerlink Electric Transmission Line Gets Business and Labor Support California business and labor groups today announced their support for the Sunrise Powerlink, a major electric- transmission line proposed by San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E). The line from Imperial Valley, California to the northwest portion of the utility’s service territory in San Diego County will deliver 1,000 megawatts to the region by 2010 – enough energy for about 650,000 homes. Energy Central Daily, April 6, 2006 http://www.sdge.com/sunrisepowerlink/newsroom/releases/release8.htm Update: FirstEnergy’s 831 MW Beaver Valley 2 Nuke in Pennsylvania Back Up April 6 The unit ramped up to 18 percent early Thursday after shutting earlier this week when the reactor automatically tripped after the main generator automatically tripped.
    [Show full text]