DOCSLIB.ORG

Preliminary Analysis of Infrastructural Failures and Their Associated Risks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preliminary Analysis of Infrastructural Failures and Their Associated Risks Page 1 of 2 Preliminary Analysis of Infrastructural Failures and their Associated Risks and Consequences Related to Biota Transfers Potentially Realized from Interbasin Water Diversion Written, edited, and compiled by Greg Linder, Stacy James, Lynne Johnson, and Chad Vishy US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Columbia Environmental Research Center Columbia, Missouri 65201 Bruce Peacock and Heather Goeddecke National Park Service Environmental Quality Division Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 file://D:\CoverTOC3.htm 1/10/2007 Page 2 of 2 September, 2006 Sections Table of Contents and Executive Summary Section 1, Introduction Section 2, Background and Specification of Tools Section 3, Failure Analysis of Biota Treatment and Interbasin Water Transmission System Section 4, Ecological Characterization of Area of Concern Section 5, Habitat Equivalency Analysis for Sheyenne River and Lake Ashtabula Section 6, Economic Consequences Incorporating Potential System Failures Section 7, Interpretative Setting, Characterization of Risks Associated with Infrastructural Failure, and Uncertainties Section 8, Literature Cited and Bibliography Appendices Appendix 1, Failure Analysis Primer Appendix 2, Habitat Equivalency Analysis Summary Results (Part 1) Appendix 3, Habitat Equivalency Analysis Summary Results (Part 2) file://D:\CoverTOC3.htm 1/10/2007 Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................ES1-1 1.0 Introduction.......................................................... 1-1 1.1 Source Water, Disinfection, and Treatment Options Considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ............................ 1-4 1.1.1 No-Action Alternative ..................................... 1-6 1.1.1.1 Risk Reduction and No-Action Alternatives .............. 1-9 1.1.2 In-basin Action Alternatives................................. 1-9 1.1.2.1 Risk Reduction and In-basin Action Alternatives ......... 1-11 1.1.3 Action Alternatives Relying on Source Waters from Missouri River . 1-13 1.1.3.1 Water Treatment Technologies Proposed In Action Alternatives and Their Potential to Reduce Risks Associated With Biota Transfer . 1-19 1.2 Project trajectory and beyond ...................................... 1-19 2.0 Background and Specification of Tools Used for an Initial Evaluation of System Failure and its Potential to Influence Risks of Biota Transfer.................................. 2-1 2.1 Literature Search and Collection of Existing Failure Data and Information Regarding Water Transmission Systems ..................................... 2-2 2.2 Background on Failure Analysis ..................................... 2-3 2.3 Preliminary Reliability Analysis and the Evaluation of Biota Treatment and Water Transmission Failures........................................... 2-8 2.3.1 Reliability Analysis and Life Distributions. ...................... 2-9 2.3.2 Graphic representations of system lifetimes ..................... 2-10 2.3.3 Expression of failure rates used in this analysis. .................. 2-11 2.4 Life-Cycle Assessment ........................................... 2-11 2.5 Habitat Equivalency Analysis and Assessing Consequences of Control System Failure Analysis.................................................... 2-13 2.5.1 Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Model Development............... 2-13 3.0 Failure Analysis of Biota Treatment and Interbasin Water Transmission System ....... 3-1 3.1 Fluid Dynamics, Leaks, Breaks, and Bursts............................. 3-4 3.1.1 Fluid dynamics of flow in pressure pipes: laminar and turbulent flow. 3-5 3.1.2 Water transmission and distribution systems.................... 3-11 3.1.3 System failure........................................... 3-16 3.2 General overview of failure mechanisms .............................. 3-18 3.2.1 Corrosion.............................................. 3-18 3.2.1.1 Chemistry of corrosion............................. 3-23 3.2.1.2 Corrosion control................................. 3-29 3.2.2 Corrosive soil........................................... 3-35 3.2.3 Material-related fatigue failures .............................. 3-39 i 3.2.3.1 Characterization of Infrastructural Pipe Materials......... 3-47 3.2.3.2 Ductile iron pipe (DIP)............................. 3-51 3.2.3.3 Steel pipe (ST) and Welded Steel Pipe (WSP) ........... 3-51 3.2.3.4 Polyvinyl chloride pipe............................. 3-52 3.2.3.5 Soil conditions potentially influencing siting decisions...... 3-52 3.2.4 Failure associated with earth movements....................... 3-58 3.2.4.1 Earthquake history of North Dakota................... 3-59 3.2.4.2 Earthquake History of Minnesota..................... 3-61 3.2.4.3 Earthquakes in Manitoba........................... 3-62 3.2.4.4 Soil heave and frost action.......................... 3-65 3.3 Failure Analysis and Risks of Biota Transfer ........................... 3-71 3.3.1 The “Bathtub curve.” ..................................... 3-71 4.0 Ecological Characterization of Area of Concern................................ 4-1 4.1 Methods........................................................ 4-3 4.2 Ecological Characterization......................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Land Cover.............................................. 4-5 4.2.2 Soils .................................................. 4-14 4.2.3 Aquifers and Groundwater.................................. 4-20 4.2.4 Water Wells............................................. 4-27 4.2.5 Pipeline Failures and Interactions with Contaminants.............. 4-30 4.2.6 Protected Areas.......................................... 4-31 4.2.7 Listed Species........................................... 4-45 4.2.8 Invasive Species.......................................... 4-59 4.3 Summary...................................................... 4-64 5.0 Habitat Equivalency Analysis for Sheyenne River and Lake Ashtabula............... 5-1 5.1 Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Model Estimation......................... 5-3 5.2 Conclusions.................................................... 5-16 6.0 Economic Consequences Incorporating Potential System Failures .................. 6-1 6.1 Why HEA?..................................................... 6-1 6.2 Incorporation of Potential System Failures ............................. 6-3 6.3 Conclusions..................................................... 6-6 7.0 Interpretative Setting, Characterization of Risks Associated with Infrastructural Failures, and Uncertainties............................................................. 7-1 7.1 Background on USGS CERC’s Technical Analysis and Informing Decisions for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project ............................. 7-1 7.1.1 Biota transfer report ....................................... 7-4 7.1.2 Supplemental Report on Risk Reduction and Proposed Alternatives .... 7-9 7.2 Failure in Control Systems and Risks of Biota Transfer ................... 7-10 7.2.1 Groundwater Disinfection .................................. 7-11 ii 7.2.2 Surface Water Treatment Rule and beyond ..................... 7-12 7.2.3 Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) . 7-13 7.2.4 Biota Treatment Incorporated Into Action Alternatives............ 7-14 7.2.5 Risk Reduction and Action Alternatives Relying on Missouri River Source Waters..................................................... 7-30 7.3 Summary and Characterization of Potential Failures and Their Associated Risks . 7-41 7.3.1 Overview of failures potentially influencing risks of biota transfer .... 7-41 7.4 Uncertainties and Risk Management.................................. 7-68 7.4.1 Uncertainty related to system failures and biota transfer ............ 7-69 7.4.2 Uncertainty associated with traditional concepts of the bathtub curve . 7-70 7.4.3 Uncertainties associated with control system, its infrastructure materials and installation .................................................. 7-79 Section 8. Literature Cited and Bibliography..................................... 8-1 Appendix 1. Failure Analysis Primer ................................... Appendix 1-1 Appendix 2. Habitat Equivalency Analysis Summary Results (Part 1) ........... Appendix 2-1 Appendix 3. Habitat Equivalency Analysis Summary Results (Part 2) ........... Appendix 3-1 iii List of Tables Table 1-1 Summary of in-basin and not in-basin alternatives identified and characterized in the DEIS. .................................................................. 1-7 Table 1-2 Summary of action alternatives involving imports of source waters to Red River basin from the Missouri River basin............................................... 1-18 Table 2-1 General listing of concerns related to failure analysis for buried pipelines........ 2-7 Table 3-1 Examples of minor loss coefficients.................................... 3-8 Table 3-2 Illustrative list of standards and practices available for evaluating pipe coatings and linings................................................................. 3-34 Table 3-3 Guides for Estimating Risk of Corrosion Potential for Uncoated Steel ........ 3-37 Table 3-4 Guide for Estimating Risk of Corrosion Potential for Concrete.............. 3-38 Table 3-5 Soil Corrosivity vs. Resistivity ...................................... 3-39 Table 3-6 Types of Soils and Engineering Characteristics .......................... 3-54 Table 3-7 Engineering Properties of Soils...................................... 3-57 Table 3-8 Geographic locations and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Small Vessel General Permit
    ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC NOTICE The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois has requested a determination from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources if their Vessel General Permit (VGP) and Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) are consistent with the enforceable policies of the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP). VGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non-recreational vessels greater than or equal to 79 ft. in length. sVGP regulates discharges incidental to the normal operation of commercial vessels and non- recreational vessels less than 79 ft. in length. VGP and sVGP can be viewed in their entirety at the ICMP web site http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/cmp/Pages/CMPFederalConsistencyRegister.aspx Inquiries concerning this request may be directed to Jim Casey of the Department’s Chicago Office at (312) 793-5947 or [email protected]. You are invited to send written comments regarding this consistency request to the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street, Suite S-703, Chicago, Illinois 60601. All comments claiming the proposed actions would not meet federal consistency must cite the state law or laws and how they would be violated. All comments must be received by July 19, 2012. Proposed Small Vessel General Permit (sVGP) United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) SMALL VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS LESS THAN 79 FEET (sVGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chase Lake Wilderness Proposal Consists of 4,155 Acres, Which Is 230 Acres Less Than the Entire Refuge
    92d Congress, 2d Session ----------- House Document No. 92-357C ']/ b ^ ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING PROPOSALS FOR SIXTEEN ADDITIONS TO THE NA- TIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM, PUR- SUANT TO 16 USC 1132, TOGETHER WITH THE EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM, PURSUANT TO 6 USC 1136 PART 14 CHASE LAKE WILDERNESS CHASE LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SEPTEMBER 21, 1972. —Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1972 THE WHITE HOUSE WAS H I N GTO N September 21, 1972 Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, I am pleased to transmit herewith proposals for sixteen additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. As described in the Wilderness Message that I am sending to the Congress today, these proposed new wilderness areas cover a total of nearly 3. 5 million primeval acres. Two other possibilities considered by the Secretary of the Interior in his review of roadless areas of 5, 000 acres or more -- White Sands National Monument, New Mexico, and Padre Island National Seashore, Texas -- were found to be unsuitable for inclusion in the Wilderness System. I concur in this finding and in the sixteen favorable recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, all of which are transmitted herewith. Concurrent with the wilderness proposals, I am also trans- mitting the Eighth Annual Report on the Status of the National Wilderness Preservation System which covers calendar year 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
    United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings of the 2008 Forest Service Northeastern Recreation Northern Research Station Research Symposium General Technical Report NRS-P-42 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium Policy Statement The objective of the NERR Symposium is to positively influence our profession by allowing managers and academicians in the governmental, education, and private recreation and tourism sectors to share practical and scientific knowledge. This objective is met through providing a professional forum for quality information exchange on current management practices, programs, and research applications in the field, as well as, a comfortable social setting that allows participants to foster friendships with colleagues. Students and all those interested in continuing their education in recreation and tourism management are welcome. NERR 2008 Steering Committee Arne Arnberger – University of BOKU, Vienna, Austria Kelly Bricker – University of Utah Robert Bristow – Westfield State College Robert Burns – West Virginia University Fred Clark – U.S. Forest Service John Confer – California University of Pennsylvania Chad Dawson – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Edwin Gomez – Old Dominion University Alan Graefe – Penn State University Laurie Harmon – George Mason University Andrew Holdnak – University of West Florida Deborah Kerstetter – Penn State University David Klenosky – Purdue University (Proceedings co-editor) Diane Kuehn – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry (Website Coordinator)
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Hearings Scheduled on Wilderness Studies In
    DEPARTMENT of the INTERIOR news release FISH AND WIU&U?E SERVICE Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife For Release March 19. 1971 Carroll 343-5634 PUBLIC REARINGS SCBEDUIEDON WILDERRESSSTUDIES IN GEORGIA, NORTHDAKCIA Public hearings to discuss the results of wilderness studies involv- ing national wildlife refuge areas are scheduled' in Georgia and North Dakota, the Interior Department announced today. Specific times and the areas involved.are: I. Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge in Georgia, 5,618 acres, hearing 9 a.m., March 25, McIntosh County Courthouse, Darien, Ga. Notice of hearing published in Federal Register Jan. 23. Blackbeard Island Refuge is approximately 18 miles offshore from the south Georgia coast, bounded on the south and east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the north and west by Sapelo Sound and Sapelo Island. The refuge is a wintering area for nearly 20,000 waterfowl and is used during the summer months by nesting shore birds. Loggerhead sea turtle nest along the beaches and American alligator are abundant in fresh water ponds. Visitors use the island for salt water and fresh water fishing, for archery hunting for deer, and for shelling, birding, and sightseeing. Blackbeard's varied environment includes virgin pine and live oak forest. A map and other information about the study is available from the Refuge Manager, Savannah National Wildlife Refuge, Route 1, Rardeeville, S.C. 29927, or the Regional Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Peachtree-Seventh Building, Atlanta, Ga. 30323. Oral or written statements may be submitted at the hearing or written comments can be sent to the Bureau's regional director-by my 10, when the hearing record will be closed.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3, Refuge Resources and Description, Comprehensive
    3 Refuge Resources and Description USFWS A Female Canvasback with Her Brood The prairies of North Dakota have become an ecological GLOBAL WARMING treasure of biological importance for waterfowl and other migratory birds. The prairie potholes of North The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) issued Dakota and South Dakota support a wide diversity of an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies wildlife, but they are most famous for their role in under its direction that have land management waterfowl production. Although the Prairie Pothole responsibilities to consider potential climate change Region occupies only 10% of North America’s waterfowl- effects as part of long-range planning endeavors. breeding range, it produces approximately 50% of the continent’s waterfowl population. The Department of Energy’s report, “Carbon Sequestration Research and Development,” concluded This chapter describes the physical environment and that ecosystem protection is important to carbon biological resources of lands within the 12 national sequestration and may reduce or prevent loss of carbon wildlife refuges. In addition, this chapter addresses the currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. The fire and grazing history, cultural resources, visitor report defines carbon sequestration as “the capture services, socioeconomic environment, and operations and secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be of the refuges. emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” The increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) within the earth’s 3.1 Physical Environment atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface temperature commonly referred to as global The refuges are located across North Dakota from warming. In relation to comprehensive conservation the Canadian border south to the state line of South planning for Refuge System units, carbon sequestration Dakota.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wilderness Act of 1964
    The Wilderness Act of 1964 Source: US House of Representatives Office of the Law This is the 1964 act that started it all Revision Counsel website at and created the first designated http://uscode.house.gov/download/ascii.shtml wilderness in the US and Nevada. This version, updated January 2, 2006, includes a list of all wilderness designated before that date. The list does not mention designations made by the December 2006 White Pine County bill. -CITE- 16 USC CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 01/02/2006 -EXPCITE- TITLE 16 - CONSERVATION CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -HEAD- CHAPTER 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM -MISC1- Sec. 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of policy; wilderness areas; administration for public use and enjoyment, protection, preservation, and gathering and dissemination of information; provisions for designation as wilderness areas. (b) Management of area included in System; appropriations. (c) "Wilderness" defined. 1132. Extent of System. (a) Designation of wilderness areas; filing of maps and descriptions with Congressional committees; correction of errors; public records; availability of records in regional offices. (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classifications as primitive areas; Presidential recommendations to Congress; approval of Congress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Eagles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado. (c) Review by Secretary of the Interior of roadless areas of national park system and national wildlife refuges and game ranges and suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; authority of Secretary of the Interior to maintain roadless areas in national park system unaffected. (d) Conditions precedent to administrative recommendations of suitability of areas for preservation as wilderness; publication in Federal Register; public hearings; views of State, county, and Federal officials; submission of views to Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Designations - Background Memorandum
    13.9106.01000 Prepared by the North Dakota Legislative Council staff for the Natural Resources Committee September 2011 FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS - BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM Section 1 of 2011 Senate Bill No. 2234 (attached federal government would take over the state program as an appendix) directs the Legislative Management due to the delay resulting from the Legislative to consider various mechanisms for improving Assembly meeting once every two years. coordination and consultation regarding federal The opponents to the bill as introduced argued that designation over land and water resources in this the bill would be preempted by federal law. The state. As introduced, the bill would have prohibited supremacy clause of the United States Constitution the federal government from establishing a federal basically states that federal law preempts state law. If designation over land or water resources in this state a state adds a requirement that the federal without the approval of the Legislative Assembly by government needs approval to implement federal law concurrent resolution. in this state, that law is contrary to the supremacy clause and is preempted by federal law. These LEGISLATIVE HISTORY opponents cited an Attorney General Letter Opinion-- The bill's proponents included the North Dakota 2011-L-01--which opined that it is likely that Stockmen's Association, the North Dakota Farm 2011 House Bill No. 1286 would be preempted by Bureau, the Landowners Association of North Dakota, federal law. The opinion summarized House Bill and certain landowners. The proponents argued that No. 1286 as making it a crime for federal or state federal designations diminish property rights and are employees to apply federal law, including federal the first step in further regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 207/Monday, October 26, 2020
    67818 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION All submissions received must include 1. General Operation and Maintenance AGENCY the Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. 2. Biofouling Management Comments received may be posted 3. Oil Management 40 CFR Part 139 without change to https:// 4. Training and Education B. Discharges Incidental to the Normal [EPA–HQ–OW–2019–0482; FRL–10015–54– www.regulations.gov, including any Operation of a Vessel—Specific OW] personal information provided. For Standards detailed instructions on sending 1. Ballast Tanks RIN 2040–AF92 comments and additional information 2. Bilges on the rulemaking process, see the 3. Boilers Vessel Incidental Discharge National 4. Cathodic Protection Standards of Performance ‘‘General Information’’ heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 5. Chain Lockers 6. Decks AGENCY: Environmental Protection this document. Out of an abundance of 7. Desalination and Purification Systems Agency (EPA). caution for members of the public and 8. Elevator Pits ACTION: Proposed rule. our staff, the EPA Docket Center and 9. Exhaust Gas Emission Control Systems Reading Room are closed to the public, 10. Fire Protection Equipment SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental with limited exceptions, to reduce the 11. Gas Turbines Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our 12. Graywater Systems for public comment a proposed rule Docket Center staff will continue to 13. Hulls and Associated Niche Areas under the Vessel Incidental Discharge provide remote customer service via 14. Inert Gas Systems Act that would establish national email, phone, and webform. We 15. Motor Gasoline and Compensating standards of performance for marine Systems encourage the public to submit 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Gtr Nrs042.Pdf
    THE SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXURBAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGNATED WILDERNESS LANDS IN THE CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Allison L. Ginn 1.0 INTRODUCTION University of Georgia Public lands preserve historic and ecological values Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry while also providing unparalleled recreational and Natural Resources opportunities. However, increases in low-density Athens, GA 30605-252 residential development in the United States pose [email protected] a threat along the boundaries of the nation’s public lands. This threat affects not only national parks and Gary T. Green forests, but also uniquely valuable Wilderness areas University of Georgia that make up the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) (Cordell et al. 2005, Stein et al. Nathan P. Nibbelink 2006). Wilderness areas are in a unique category of University of Georgia federal land protected through the 964 Wilderness Act, which expressly prohibits human modification of H. Ken Cordell the landscape. Though Wilderness areas are managed U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station by one of four agencies (Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], Forest Service [FS], or National Park Service [NPS]), all Abstract .—Public lands provide recreational Wilderness areas are part of the National Wilderness opportunities and preserve historic and ecological Preservation System (NWPS). These lands preserve values. Increases in low-density residential inimitable research and recreational opportunities; development in the contiguous United States pose provide sources of ecological and biological diversity; a threat not only along the boundaries of national and offer oft-perceived aesthetic, existence, bequest, parks and forests, but also around uniquely valuable and intrinsic values (Cordell 2005, Noss 99).
    [Show full text]