DOCSLIB.ORG

Strata Energy Inc.), 2016, Ross ISR Project Annual Surety Estimate, Revised March 2016, March 11, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Strata Energy Inc.), 2016, Ross ISR Project Annual Surety Estimate, Revised March 2016, March 11, 2016 Application for Amendment of USNRC Source Materials License SUA-1601, Ross ISR Project, for the Kendrick Expansion Area RAI Question and Answer Responses for the Kendrick Expansion Area Environmental Report Docket #40-09091 Prepared for: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Prepared by: Strata Energy, Inc. 1900 W. Warlow Drive, Bldg. A P.O. Box 2318 Gillette, WY 82717-2318 August 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS General ............................................................................................................... 1 ER RAI GEN-1(A) Response ...................................................................................... 1 ER RAI GEN-1(B) and (C) Response .......................................................................... 3 ER RAI GEN-2(A) Response .................................................................................... 15 ER RAI GEN-2(B) Response .................................................................................... 16 ER RAI GEN-2(C) Response .................................................................................... 17 ER RAI GEN-2(D) Response .................................................................................... 18 ER RAI GEN-3 Response ......................................................................................... 20 ER RAI GEN-4 Response ......................................................................................... 22 ER RAI GEN-5 Response ......................................................................................... 23 ER RAI GEN-6(A) Response .................................................................................... 25 ER RAI GEN-6(B) Response .................................................................................... 26 ER RAI GEN-6(C) Response .................................................................................... 27 ER RAI GEN-7 Response ......................................................................................... 28 ER RAI GEN-8 Response ......................................................................................... 29 ER RAI GEN-9 Response ......................................................................................... 30 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 31 ER RAI LU-1 Response ........................................................................................... 31 ER RAI LU-2 Response ........................................................................................... 33 Transportation .................................................................................................. 34 ER RAI TR-1 Response ........................................................................................... 34 Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 35 ER RAI GEO-1 Response ........................................................................................ 35 ER RAI GEO-2(A) Response .................................................................................... 37 ER RAI GEO-2(B) Response .................................................................................... 39 ER RAI GEO-3 Response ........................................................................................ 41 ER RAI GEO-4 Response ........................................................................................ 42 ER RAI GEO-5 Response ........................................................................................ 43 ER RAI GEO-6(A) Response .................................................................................... 46 ER RAI GEO-6(B) Response .................................................................................... 47 ER RAI GEO-6(C) Response .................................................................................... 48 Kendrick Expansion Area ER RAI Response SUA-1601 Amendment Application i August 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ER RAI GEO-7 Response ........................................................................................ 51 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................... 52 ER RAI SW-1 Response ........................................................................................... 52 ER RAI SW-2 Response ........................................................................................... 56 ER RAI SW-3 Response ........................................................................................... 58 ER RAI SW-4 Response ........................................................................................... 61 ER RAI SW-5 Response ........................................................................................... 62 Ground Water Resources ................................................................................... 68 ER RAI GW-1(A) Response ...................................................................................... 68 ER RAI GW-1(B) Response ...................................................................................... 70 ER RAI GW-2 Response .......................................................................................... 72 ER RAI GW-3(A) Response ...................................................................................... 73 ER RAI GW-3(B) Response ...................................................................................... 76 ER RAI GW-4 Response .......................................................................................... 78 ER RAI GW-5 Response .......................................................................................... 80 ER RAI GW-6 Response .......................................................................................... 81 ER RAI GW-7 Response .......................................................................................... 86 ER RAI GW-8 Response .......................................................................................... 87 ER RAI GW-9 Response .......................................................................................... 88 Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................................ 90 ER RAI TER-1 Response ......................................................................................... 90 ER RAI TER-2 Response ......................................................................................... 93 Aquatic Ecology ................................................................................................ 95 ER RAI AQ-1(A) Response ....................................................................................... 95 ER RAI AQ-1(B) Response ....................................................................................... 96 Meteorology, Climatology, and Air Quality ........................................................ 97 ER RAI AIR-1(A) Response ...................................................................................... 97 ER RAI AIR-1(B) Response .................................................................................... 100 ER RAI AIR-1(C) Response .................................................................................... 101 ER RAI AIR-2(A) Response .................................................................................... 102 ER RAI AIR-2(B) Response .................................................................................... 103 ER RAI AIR-2(C) Response .................................................................................... 104 Kendrick Expansion Area ER RAI Response SUA-1601 Amendment Application ii August 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ER RAI AIR-2(D) Response .................................................................................... 105 ER RAI AIR-3 Response ........................................................................................ 106 ER RAI AIR-4 Response ........................................................................................ 107 Noise ............................................................................................................... 109 ER RAI NOI-1 Response ........................................................................................ 109 ER RAI NOI-2(A) Response .................................................................................... 110 ER RAI NOI-2(B) Response.................................................................................... 111 ER RAI NOI-2(C) Response.................................................................................... 112 ER RAI NOI-2(D) Response ................................................................................... 114 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 115 ER RAI CUL-1 Response ....................................................................................... 115 ER RAI CUL-2 Response ....................................................................................... 116 ER RAI CUL-3 Response ....................................................................................... 117 Visual/Scenic Resources ................................................................................. 118 ER RAI VIS-1 Response ........................................................................................ 118 Socioeconomics
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5340 Exchanges Missoula, Ninemile, Plains/Thompson
    5340 EXCHANGES MISSOULA, NINEMILE, PLAINS/THOMPSON FALLS, SEELEY LAKE, AND SUPERIOR RANGER DISTRICTS LOLO NATIONAL FOREST MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION LAND EXCHANGE MTM 92893 MINERAL POTENTIAL REPORT Minerals Examiner: _____________________________________ Norman B. Smyers, Geologist-Lolo and Flathead National Forests _____________________________________ Date Regional Office Review: _____________________________________ Michael J. Burnside, Northern Region Certified Review Mineral Examiner _____________________________________ Date Abstract-DNRC/Lolo NF Land Exchange Mineral Report: Page A-1 ABSTRACT The non-federal and federal lands involved in the proposed Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Land Exchange are located across western Montana and within the exterior boundaries of the lands administered by the Lolo National Forest. The proposed land exchange includes approximately 12,123 acres of non-federal land and 10,150 acres of federal land located in six counties--Granite, Lincoln, Missoula, Mineral, Powell, and Sanders. For the Federal government, the purpose of the exchange is to improve land ownership patterns for more efficient and effective lands management by: reducing the need to locate landline and survey corners; reducing the need for issuing special-use and right-of-way authorizations; and facilitating the implementation of landscape level big game winter range vegetative treatments. With the exception of one DNRC parcel and six Federal parcels, the mineral estates of the parcels involved in the proposed land exchange are owned by either the State of Montana or the U.S. Government and can be conveyed with the corresponding surface estates. The exceptions are: the DNRC Sunrise parcel; and, for the U.S. Government, the Graham Mountain 2,Graham Mountain 10, Fourmile 10, St.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Mineral resource potential of national forest RARE II and wilderness areas in Montana Compiled by Christopher E. Williams 1 and Robert C. Pearson2 Open-File Report 84-637 1984 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. 1 Present address 2 Denver, Colorado U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/NEIC Denver, Colorado CONTENTS (See also indices listings, p. 128-131) Page Introduction*........................................................... 1 Beaverhead National Forest............................................... 2 North Big Hole (1-001).............................................. 2 West Pioneer (1-006)................................................ 2 Eastern Pioneer Mountains (1-008)................................... 3 Middle Mountain-Tobacco Root (1-013)................................ 4 Potosi (1-014)...................................................... 5 Madison/Jack Creek Basin (1-549).................................... 5 West Big Hole (1-943)............................................... 6 Italian Peak (1-945)................................................ 7 Garfield Mountain (1-961)........................................... 7 Mt. Jefferson (1-962)............................................... 8 Bitterroot National Forest.............................................. 9 Stony Mountain (LI-BAD)............................................. 9 Allan Mountain (Ll-YAG)............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness-Watcher-Summer-2021
    Wilderness WILDERNESS WATCH eeping Wilderness Wild WATCHER The Quarterly Newsletter of Wilderness Watch Volume 32 • Number 2 • Summer 2021 Should We Poison the Scapegoat? by Gary Macfarlane he Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife review of actions that are done pursuant to section 4(c) and Parks (FWP) recently put forth a five- of the Wilderness Act. The extensive helicopter and other year plan to poison 67 miles of the North motorized equipment and transport proposed in this TFork of the Blackfoot River and three lakes in the project are activities that are presumptively prohibited Scapegoat Wilderness. The Scapegoat is the southern in Wilderness under Section 4(c). … If a CE can be used anchor of the famed Bob Marshall Wilderness Com- in Wilderness to exempt projects of this size and scope, plex, an area of 1.6 utilizing a wide array of million unbroken acres generally prohibited uses of designated Wil- and significantly altering derness that is home ecological processes, then to rare species such as one has to wonder if any grizzly bears, wolves, project ever would rise to and wolverines. the level of an EA or EIS in Wilderness no matter The proposal poses a how harmful. myriad of problems beyond poisoning The background behind streams and lakes this shows how ill-ad- and much of the life vised the plan is, beyond that lives in them. its inappropriate impacts There’s the 93 he- to Wilderness. There licopter flights and North Fork of the Blackfoot River, Scapegoat Wilderness. USFS were no trout or likely landings, plus the use other fish historically of motorboats, pumps, above the North Fork and gas-powered generators—all in a place where Falls.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan Benton Lake National Wildlife
    CHAPTER 3–Refuge Resources and Description inean T inean © Jeff V Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Area This chapter describes the characteristics and re- tics include climate, climate change, geography and sources of the Benton Lake National Wildlife Ref- physiography, soils, water resources, water quality, uge Complex and how existing or past management water rights, and air quality. or other influences have affected these resources. The affected environment addresses the physical, biological, and social aspects that could be affected Climate by management under this CCP. The Service used published and unpublished data, as noted in the bib- The refuge complex covers more than 2,700 square liography, to quantify what is known about it. miles and spans the Continental Divide in north- western and north-central Montana. The Continen- tal Divide exerts a marked influence on the climate of adjacent areas. West of the Divide, the climate 3.1 Physical Environment might be termed a modified, north Pacific Coast type, while to the east, climatic characteristics are The following sections describe the physical charac- decidedly continental. On the west of the mountain teristics of the refuge complex. Physical characteris- barrier, winters are milder, precipitation is more 44 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Montana evenly distributed throughout the year, summers There is no freeze-free period in many higher valleys are cooler in general, and winds are lighter than on of the western mountains, but hardy and nourish- the eastern side. According to the National Oceanic ing grasses thrive in such places, producing large and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), there is amounts of quality grazing for stock (NOAA 2011b).
    [Show full text]
  • May 7,2009 Be Available in the Near Future at Http
    Monlo no De porlme nf of lronsoo rt oii on Jim Lvnch, Dîrector *ruhrylaùtlthNde 2701 Prospect Avenue Brîon Schweífzer, Gov ernor PO Box 201001 Heleno MT 59620-1001 May 7,2009 Ted Mathis Gallatin Field 850 Gallatin Field Road #6 Belgrade MT 59714 Subject: Montana Aimorts Economic knpact Study 2009 Montana State Aviation System Plan Dear Ted, I am pleased to announce that the Economic Impact Study of Montana Airports has been completed. This study was a two-year collaborative eflort between the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Aeronautics Division, the Federal Aviation Administration, Wilbur Smith and Associates and Morrison Maierle Inc. The enclosed study is an effort to break down aviation's significant contributions in Montana and show how these impacts affect economies on a statewide and local level. Depending on your location, you may also find enclosed several copies of an individual economic summary specific to your airport. Results ofthe study clearly show that Montana's 120 public use airports are a major catalyst to our economy. Montana enplanes over 1.5 million prissengers per year at our 15 commercial service airports, half of whom are visiting tourists. The economic value of aviation is over $1.56 billion and contributes nearly 4.5 percent to our total gross state product. There arc 18,759 aviation dependent positions in Montana, accounting for four percent of the total workforce and $600 million in wages. In addition to the economic benefits, the study also highlights how Montana residents increasingly depend on aviation to support their healtþ welfare, and safety. Montana airports support critical services for medical care, agriculture, recreation, emergency access, law enforcement, and fire fighting.
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-16-115T, SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: Subtitle
    United States Government Accountability Office T estimony Before the Subcommittee on Transportation Security , Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET Tuesday, November 17, 2015 SCREENING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM Improved Cost Estimates Can Enhance Program Decision Making Statement of Jennifer Grover, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Accessible Version GAO-16-115T Letter Letter Chairman Katko, Ranking Member Rice, and Members of the Subcommittee I am pleased to be here today to discuss issues related to the Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Screening Partnership Program (SPP). TSA, within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for screening the approximately 1.8 million passengers and their property traveling through our nation’s airports every day to ensure, among other things, that persons do not carry prohibited items into airport sterile areas or on flights.1 In 2004, TSA created the SPP, allowing commercial (i.e., TSA-regulated) airports an opportunity to apply to TSA to have the screening of passengers and property performed by TSA-approved qualified private-screening contractors.2 Contractors perform passenger and baggage screening services at a total of 21 airports across the country, with the most recent airport beginning operations in June 2015.3 At each of the SPP airports, TSA continues to be responsible for overseeing screening operations, and the contractors must adhere to TSA’s security standards, procedures, and requirements. Since the SPP’s inception, congressional committees, industry stakeholders, and TSA have sought to determine how screening costs compare at airports with private and federal (i.e., TSA-employed) screeners, and TSA does produce cost estimates that attempt to predict what it would cost the agency to provide passenger and baggage screening services at airports that have opted out or plan to opt out of federal screening.
    [Show full text]
  • June 9, 2021 by Email and Overnight Delivery Tom Vilsack Secretary U.S
    June 9, 2021 By Email and Overnight Delivery Tom Vilsack Leanne Marten Secretary Regional Forester U.S. Department of Agriculture Northern Region 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. U.S. Forest Service Washington, DC 20250 26 Fort Missoula Road [email protected] Missoula, MT 59804 [email protected] [email protected] Meryl Harrell Mary Farnsworth Deputy Under Secretary Regional Forester Natural Resources and Environment Intermountain Region U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. 324 25th Street Washington, DC 20250 Ogden, UT 84401 [email protected] [email protected] Chris French Glenn Casamassa Acting Deputy Under Secretary Regional Forester Natural Resources and Environment Pacific Northwest Region U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Forest Service 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. 1220 SW 3rd Avenue Washington, DC 20250 Portland, OR 97204 [email protected] [email protected] Vicki Christiansen Chief U.S. Forest Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Ave. S.W. Washington, DC 20250 [email protected] Re: Petition for Regulatory Protection of Wilderness Character in Response to Idaho and Montana’s New Wolf Laws and Wolf-Removal Programs Dear Secretary Vilsack and Agriculture Department officials, This is a petition for regulatory action by the U.S. Forest Service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 553(e) and 7 C.F.R. § 1.28. I am writing on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, NORTHERN ROCKIES OFFICE 313 EAST MAIN STREET BOZEMAN, MT 59715 T: 406.586.9699 F: 406.586.9695 [email protected] WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Clearwater, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, International Wildlife Coexistence Network, Montana Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Western Watersheds Project, Wilderness Watch, and Wolves of the Rockies (“Petitioners”).
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1997 / Notices 33697
    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 119 / Friday, June 20, 1997 / Notices 33697 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION statements at the meeting. The public Brief Description of Projects Approved may present written statements to the for Use: Air carrier apron rehabilitation, Federal Aviation Administration committee at any time by providing 12 Runway 15/33 rehabilitation. copies to the person listed under the Decision Date: May 2, 1997. Weather Enhancement Advisory heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For Further Information Contact: Subgroup Meeting on Alaska Aviation CONTACT: or by bringing the copies to David P. Gabbert, Helena Airports Weather Requirements the meeting. District Office, (406) 449±5271. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Issued in Washington, DC, June 16, 1997. Public Agency: City of Oklahoma City, Administration (FAA), DOT. William H. Brodie, Jr., Department of Airports, Oklahoma City, ACTION: Notice of meeting. Special Assistant to Program Director, Oklahoma. Aviation Weather Directorate, ARW±1. Application Number: 97±01±C±00± SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation [FR Doc. 97±16186 Filed 6±19±97; 8:45 am] OKC. Administration (FAA) is issuing this Application Type: Impose and use a BILLING CODE 4910±13±M notice to advise the public of a meeting PFC. of the FAA Weather Enhancement PFC Level: $3.00. Advisory Subgroup to discuss Alaska DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Total Net PFC Revenue Approved in Aviation Weather Requirements. This Decision: $10,446,875. DATES: The meeting will be held July 14, Federal Aviation Administration Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 1997, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. 1997. Arrange for presentations by July 3, Notice of Passenger Facility Charge Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • TSA -Screening Partnership Program FY 2015 1St Half
    Screening Partnership Program First Half, Fiscal Year 2015 June 19, 2015 Fiscal Year 2015 Report to Congress Transportation Security Administration Message from the Acting Administrator June 19, 2015 I am pleased to present the following report, “Screening Partnership Program,” for the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, prepared by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA is submitting this report pursuant to language in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the FY 2015 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act (P.L. 114-4). The report discusses TSA’s execution of the Screening Partnership Program (SPP) and the processing of SPP applications. Pursuant to congressional requirements, this report is being provided to the following Members of Congress: The Honorable John R. Carter Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Lucille Roybal-Allard Ranking Member, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable John Hoeven Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Inquiries relating to this report may be directed to me at (571) 227-2801 or to the Department’s Chief Financial Officer, Chip Fulghum, at (202) 447-5751. Sincerely yours, Francis X. Taylor Acting Administrator i Screening Partnership Program First Half, Fiscal Year 2015 Table of Contents I. Legislative Language .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wilderness in the Northern Rockies| a Missoula-Lolo National Forest Perspective
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1993 Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective Todd L. Denison The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Denison, Todd L., "Wilderness in the northern Rockies| A Missoula-Lolo National Forest perspective" (1993). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4091. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4091 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's written consent. MontanaUniversity of WILDERNESS IN THE NORTHERN ROCKIES: A MISSOULA-LOLO NATIONAL FOREST PERSPECTIVE By Todd L. Denison B.A. University of Montana, 1986 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Montana 1993 Approved by Chairman, Board of Examiners Dean, Graduate School UMI Number: EP36297 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Notices 19619 membership, the new entity will be FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: April 7, 1995. subject to all other requirements for June Gibbs Brown, membership approval. Olive Franklin, Office of Investigations, Inspector General. (202)±619±2501.Glenn Sklar, Office of The Commission believes that the [FR Doc. 95±9579 Filed 4±18±95; 8:45 am] the General Counsel, (410)±965±6247. amendments to Articles V and VIII of BILLING CODE 4190±29±±M the PSE Constitution reasonably balance SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Social the Exchange's interest in having the Security Independence and Program flexibility to approve entities with new Improvements Act of 1994 (SSIPIA), DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION organizational structures for Exchange Pub. L. 103±296, separated the Social membership, with the regulatory Security Administration (SSA) from its Office of the Secretary interests in protecting the financial and parent agency, the Department of Health [Order 95±4±20] structural integrity of a member and Human Services (HHS), and organization. For example, although the established SSA as an independent Reissuance of the Section 41102 amendments permit the Exchange to agency effective March 31, 1995. The Certificate to Village Aviation, Inc.; approve business trusts, limited liability SSIPIA also required that all functions d/b/a Camai Air; Order to Show Cause companies, or other organizational relating to SSA that were previously structures with characteristics of performed by the HHS/IG must be AGENCY: Department of Transportation. corporations or partnerships as member transferred to the SSA/IG. In order to ACTION: Notice of reissuance of section organizations, the PSE will review each perform these functions, the SSA/IG 41102 certificate.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Books, Reports, and Studies Resources, Energy, and the Environment 2004 Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation University of Colorado Boulder. Natural Resources Law Center Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/books_reports_studies Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons Citation Information Special Use Provisions in Wilderness Legislation (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION (Natural Res. Law Ctr., Univ. of Colo. Sch. of Law 2004). Reproduced with permission of the Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment (formerly the Natural Resources Law Center) at the University of Colorado Law School. SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION Natural Resources Law Center University of Colorado School of Law 401 UCB Boulder, Colorado 80309-0401 2004 Table of Contents SPECIAL USE PROVISIONS IN WILDERNESS LEGISLATION ........................................................... 1 I. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Specific Special Use Provisions............................................................................................. 1 A. Water Rights ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]