DOCSLIB.ORG

State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

State Route 160 (Blue Diamond Road) Corridor Study Final Report August 31, 2006 Booz Allen Hamilton with Civilwise Inc. Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1-1 2.0 CURRENT CONDITIONS OF STUDY AREA ................................................... 2-1 2.1 Description of SR-160....................................................................................2-1 2.2 Geographic Boundaries ..................................................................................2-1 2.3 Communities Served......................................................................................2-1 2.4 Current Zoning and Community Plans ..............................................................2-3 2.4.1 Clark County ......................................................................................2-3 2.4.2 2004 Land Use Plan for Enterprise.........................................................2-3 2.5 Current Land Use ..........................................................................................2-4 2.5.1 Public Facilities Needs Assessment ........................................................2-5 2.6 Future Growth ..............................................................................................2-6 2.6.1 Transit-Supportive Land-Use Actions .....................................................2-7 2.6.2 Recent Growth Management Activities .................................................2-13 2.6.3 Potential for Future Growth ................................................................2-13 2.7 Study Area Demographics ............................................................................2-14 2.7.1 Population ........................................................................................2-15 2.7.2 Employment .....................................................................................2-16 2.8 Study Area Transportation System ................................................................2-17 2.8.1 Daily Volumes...................................................................................2-18 2.8.2 Congestion Index ..............................................................................2-19 2.8.3 Level of Service (LOS) .......................................................................2-19 2.9 Highways and Major Arterials........................................................................2-22 2.9.1 Major Highways ................................................................................2-24 2.9.2 Major Arterials ..................................................................................2-25 2.10 Transit Services ..........................................................................................2-27 2.10.1 Route Descriptions, Service Levels, and Ridership .................................2-27 3.0 OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT MODES ................................................................ 3-1 3.1 Conventional Bus Transit................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Overview............................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Vehicle Characteristics .........................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Infrastructure Elements .......................................................................3-4 3.1.4 Service Characteristics.........................................................................3-5 3.1.5 Costs .................................................................................................3-5 i Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 3.2 Bus Rapid Transit ..........................................................................................3-6 3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................3-6 3.2.2 Vehicle Characteristics .........................................................................3-7 3.2.3 Infrastructure Elements .......................................................................3-8 3.2.4 Service Characteristics.......................................................................3-10 3.2.5 Costs ...............................................................................................3-10 3.3 Light Rail Transit / Diesel Multiple Unit Transit ................................................3-12 3.3.1 Overview..........................................................................................3-12 3.3.2 Vehicle Characteristics .......................................................................3-13 3.3.3 Infrastructure Elements .....................................................................3-14 3.3.4 Service Characteristics.......................................................................3-15 3.3.5 Capital Costs ....................................................................................3-15 4.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Factors Guiding Transit Expansion ...................................................................4-1 4.2 Screening Methodology ..................................................................................4-3 5.0 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Radial and Cross Town Alignments ..................................................................5-1 5.2 Physical Characteristics of Specific Alignments ..................................................5-2 5.2.1 Radial Alignments ...............................................................................5-3 5.2.2 Cross-Town Alignments........................................................................5-8 5.3 Modal Options.............................................................................................5-10 5.3.1 Light Rail/DMU..................................................................................5-11 5.3.2 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) .....................................................................5-12 5.3.3 Conventional Bus Transit....................................................................5-12 5.4 Alternative Refinement ................................................................................5-13 6.0 SR-160 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN .................................................. 6-1 6.1 Current conditions and SR-160 expansion project..............................................6-1 6.2 Future Highway Lane Configuration .................................................................6-3 6.3 Signaled Intersection Configuration .................................................................6-3 6.4 Optimizing movement of transit vehicles ..........................................................6-4 6.4.1 Queue-Jumping Intersections ...............................................................6-4 6.4.2 Left Turn Lanes...................................................................................6-6 6.4.3 Bus Signal Priority...............................................................................6-7 6.5 Congestion Management Strategies.................................................................6-8 6.5.1 Transportation System Management......................................................6-8 6.5.2 Future Roadway System Performance ....................................................6-8 ii Table of Contents RTC SR-160 Corridor Study 6.6 Representative Intersection Diagram ...............................................................6-9 6.7 Union Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way ...............................................................6-11 6.7.1 Overview..........................................................................................6-11 6.7.2 Analysis by Segment .........................................................................6-12 6.7.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................6-15 7.0 PROPOSED PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES ................................................... 7-1 7.1 Park & Ride Site and Design Criteria ................................................................7-1 7.1.1 Location .............................................................................................7-1 7.1.2 Configuration......................................................................................7-1 7.1.3 Other Factors......................................................................................7-2 7.2 Candidate Park & Ride Sites ...........................................................................7-2 7.3 Recommended Park & Ride Sites.....................................................................7-4 7.3.1 SR-160 east of S. Hualapai Way............................................................7-6 7.3.2 SR-160 west of S. Durango Drive ........................................................7-11 7.3.3 SR-160 between Rainbow and Torrey Pines ..........................................7-15 7.4 Land Acquisition Options ..............................................................................7-19 7.5 Bus Stops...................................................................................................7-20 7.5.1 SR-160 at S. Buffalo Drive .................................................................7-21 7.5.2 SR-160 at Arville Street .....................................................................7-21
Recommended publications
  • RIT Projects in Need of Funding (491KB PDF)

    RIT Projects in Need of Funding (491KB PDF)

    3 October 2019 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 7 Top 10 Fencing Recommendations 134 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25. Piosphere Restoration on the Fenner/Piute Valley Critical Habitat Unit in $209,250 v2 Mojave National Preserve CA30 Desert Tortoise Barrier Fencing: Interstate 40 near Kelbaker Road $543,500 Rd 5 Rd7 Fence US 95 Nevada border
  • DOCKET April�2,�2012� 11-AFC- � 2 427930.DI.DR� DATE APR 02 2012 � RECD

    DOCKET April2,2012 11-AFC- 2 427930.DI.DR DATE APR 02 2012 RECD

    CH2M HILL 2485 Natomas Park Drive Suite 600 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tel 916.286.0224 Fax 916.614.3424 DOCKET April2,2012 11-AFC- 2 427930.DI.DR DATE APR 02 2012 RECD. A R 2012 MikeMonasmith P 02 SeniorProjectManager SystemsAssessment&FacilitySitingDivision CaliforniaEnergyCommission 1516NinthStreet,MS15 Sacramento,CA95814 Subject: SupplementalDataResponse,Set2 HiddenHillsSolarElectricGeneratingSystem(11AFC2) DearMr.Monasmith: OnbehalfofHiddenHillsSolarI,LLC;andHiddenHillsSolarII,LLC,pleasefindattachedelectronic copiesofSupplementalDataResponse,Set2,whichprimarilyaddressestheproject’sBoiler OptimizationthatwasdiscussedduringStatusConference2,onFebruary28,2012. Inaddition,wehaveattachedthematerialsthatarebeingsentunderseparatecovertotheGreat BasinUnifiedAirPollutionControlDistrict. Weplantofilethisinformationelectronicallyandfollowupwithhardcopies.Pleasecallmeifyou haveanyquestions. Sincerely, CH2MHILL JohnL.Carrier,J.D. ProgramManager Encl. c: POSList Projectfile Supplemental Data Response Set 2 (Boiler Optimization) Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System (11-AFC-2) Application for Certifi cation Hidden Hills Solar I, LLC; and Hidden Hills Solar II, LLC April 2012 With Technical Assistance from IS061411043744SAC Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System (HHSEGS) (11-AFC-2) Supplemental Data Response, Set 2 (Project Description and Visual Resources) Submitted to the California Energy Commission Submitted by Hidden Hills Solar I, LLC; and Hidden Hills Solar II, LLC April 2, 2012 With Assistance from 2485 Natomas
  • 28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group

    28 September 2020 Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group

    28 September 2020 DESERT TORTOISE RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION STATUS SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Desert Tortoise Management Oversight Group Recovery Priorities 1 RIT Projects in Need of Funding 1 RIT Project Summaries 6 Top Fencing Recommendations 14 Funded RIT Projects 16 DESERT TORTOISE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT GROUP RECOVERY PRIORITIES ● Restore habitat (incl. route restoration) ● Reduce predator subsidies ● Targeted predator control ● Install and maintain tortoise barrier fencing ● Fire management planning and implementation ● Education (lower priority than on-the-ground actions) RIT PROJECTS IN NEED OF FUNDING Desert tortoise population trends through 2014 are indicated for geographic areas covered by the range-wide monitoring program Project Priority Title Budget # Rangewide RW02 Seed Increases for Desert Tortoise Habitat Restoration in Southern Nevada $140,000 California RIT - Rangewide Mojave Raven Watch - a desert tortoise rangewide human education CA09 $126,500 program Removal of free-roaming burros on BLM managed land in excess of CA41 $2,465,000 authorized population level. Identification of existing culverts and underpasses needing maintenance or CA42 modification to facilitate desert tortoise movement under highways and $48,000 roads. Rd8 Fence I-40 north of Black Ridge, CA, both sides, 5.0 miles TBD Rd11 Fence I-40 near Old Dad Mountains, both sides, 9.4 miles TBD Rd13 Fence I-40 near Kalbaker Rd, 8.1 miles TBD California RIT - Northeast Mojave Workgroup Ivanpah Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA41) -7.4%/year Increase law enforcement patrols for desert tortoise protection in Mojave CA19 $259,000 National Preserve. CA26 Evaluation of raven food subsidy sites near the Mojave National Preserve $82,133 Fenner Critical Habitat Unit (see also CA19, CA26, and CA41) -7.3%/year CA25.
  • NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM X Action EC]I Presentation EC]I Presentation & Action

    NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM X Action EC]I Presentation EC]I Presentation & Action

    NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM X Action EC]I Presentation EC]I Presentation & Action Action requested: (Include what, with whom, when, where, why, how much ($) and terms) Discussion and possible decision to approve the BOCC Minutes for: June 30, 2004, July 12, 2004, August 6,2004, August 27,2004 September 14,2004, September 23,2004, January 18, 2005, February 15,2005, March I,2005, March 2,2005, March 7,2005 and March 22,2005. I Complete description of requested action: (Include, if applicable, background, impact, long-term commitment, existing county policy, future goals, obtained by competitive bid, accountability measures) Discussion and possible decision to approve the BOCC Minutes for: June 30, 2004, July 12, 2004, August 6,2004, August 27,2004 September 14,2004, September 23,2004, January 18, 2005, February 15,2005, March I,2005, March 2,2005, March 7,2005 and March 22,2005. Any information provided after the agenda is published or during the meeting of the Commissioners will require you to provide 10 copies: one for each Commissioner, one for the Clerk, one for the District Attorney, one for the Public and two for the County Manager. Contracts or documents requiring signature must be submitted with three original copies. Expenditure Impact by FY(s): (Provide detail on Financial Form) C;) No financial impact Clerk of the Board Date AGENDA FINANCIAL FORM Agenda Item No.: 1. Department Name: 2. Financial Contact Person: Direct Phone 482-7280 3. Personnel Contact Person Direct Phone 4. Was the Budget Director consulted during the completion of this form (Y or N )? 5.
  • Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada

    Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada

    Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1730-A Chapter A Mineral Resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada By JAMES E. CONRAD and HARLAN N. BARTON U.S. Geological Survey DAVID A. LIPTON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1730-A MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS: SOUTHERN NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DONALD PAUL MODEL, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1986 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center, Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Conrad, James E. Mineral resources of the La Madre Mountains Wilderness Study Area, Clark County, Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1730-A Bibliography: p. 9 Supt. of Docs. No.: I 19.3:1730-A 1. Mines and mineral resources Nevada La Madre Mountains Wilderness. 2. Geology Nevada La Madre Mountains Wilderness. 3. La Madre Mountains Wilderness (Nev.) I. Barton, Harlan N. II. Lipton, David A. (David Abraham), 1954- . III. Title. IV. Series. QE75.B9 No. 1730-A 557.3 s 86-600162 [TN424.N3] [553'.0979'13] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines to conduct mineral surveys on certain areas to determine the mineral values, if any, that may be present.
  • Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

    Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project

    B L M U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project January 25, 2012 DRAFT PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Southern Nevada District Office 4701 North Torrey Pines Dr. Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 USA (702)515–5000 Environmental Assessment: Red Rock Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project January 25, 2012 Environmental Assessment ii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1. Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Brome ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3. Identifying Information: ................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1. Title, EA number, and type of project: .................................................................. 3 1.3.2. Location of Proposed Action: ................................................................................ 4 1.3.3. Name and Location of Preparing Office: ............................................................... 4 1.3.4. Identify the subject function code, lease, serial, or case file number: ................... 5 1.3.5. Applicant Name: ...................................................................................................
  • Southern Nevada District Office District Manager’S Report January 2018

    Southern Nevada District Office District Manager’S Report January 2018

    BLM Southern Nevada District Office District Manager’s Report January 2018 Southern Nevada District Office Revised Draft Resource Management Plan: The BLM has determined that a Revised Draft RMP/EIS should be developed and an opportunity for public input is needed to gather additional information on the areas of renewable energy, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, lands with wilderness characteristics, land tenure adjustments (land disposals), and socio-economics. Public comment for a Revised Draft Southern Nevada District Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement runs to February 2, 2018. During this period, the BLM will conduct public meetings to present information and provide for the opportunity for public input. The Revised Draft RMP/EIS will incorporate substantive comments received from the initial Draft RMP/EIS and information received from the public input period and meetings. Public meetings are scheduled as follows: • January 9, 2018 – Old Overton Gym, 179 S Andersen St, Overton, Nevada 89040 • January 10, 2018 – Mesquite City Council Chambers, 10 E Mesquite Blvd, Mesquite, Nevada 89027 • January 11, 2018 – Santa Fe Station Hotel & Casino, 4949 N Rancho Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 • January 16, 2018 – Pahrump Nugget Hotel and Casino, 681 S Hwy 160, Pahrump, Nevada 89048 • January 17, 2018 – Heritage Park Senior Facility, 300 S. Racetrack Road, Henderson, Nevada 89015 • January 18, 2018 – Searchlight Community Center, 200 Michael Wendell Way, Searchlight, Nevada 89046 In addition to the public meetings, public comments will be accepted through one of the methods listed below: • E-mail: [email protected] • Fax: (702) 515-5023 • Mail: BLM Southern Nevada District Office, Southern Nevada District RMP Revision, 4701 N.
  • Current Knowledge and Conservation of Cylindropuntia Multigeniculata (Cactaceae), the Blue Diamond Cholla

    Current Knowledge and Conservation of Cylindropuntia Multigeniculata (Cactaceae), the Blue Diamond Cholla

    Current Knowledge and Conservation of Cylindropuntia multigeniculata (Cactaceae), the Blue Diamond cholla Marc A. Baker Southwest Botanical Research 1217 Granite Lane Chino Valley, AZ 86323 (928) 636-0252 15 June 2005 Status report prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nevada State Office 1340 Financial Boulevard, suite 234, Reno NV 89502. (775) 861 6300 with funds provided through Project Agreement in cooperation with Prescott College, Prescott, Arizona SUMMARY : The typical form of the Blue Diamond cholla, Cylindropuntia multigeniculata , is now known to occur from north of Las Vegas, near Gass Peak, in the Las Vegas Range, southwest into the La Madre Mountain area, south to Blue Diamond, and then southeast into the McCullough Range. The knowledge of new localities is largely owing to efforts of Gina Glenne of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and Pat Putnam and Jed Botsford of the Bureau of Land Management. Prior to these discoveries, the Blue Diamond cholla was known to occur only at its type locality in the Blue Diamond Hills, just west of Las Vegas. Current surveys indicate that populations of C. multigeniculata conservatively occupy at least 25km² with densities averaging 23 individuals per hectare, thus the conservative estimate of number of individuals is 56,500. This estimate does not include at least one population in the Sheep Range that appear to be comprised of individuals morphologically intermediate between C. multigeniculata and C. whipplei var. whipplei . Populations of C. multigeniculata with consistently spiny fruits occur from Bonelli Peak, Gold Butte area of eastern Clark County, Nevada, south into the White Hills and Black Mountains of Mojave County, Arizona.
  • Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

    Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada Volume II Appendices A through J U.S. Department of Energy Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management DOE/EIS-0250F-S1 June 2008 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS To ensure a more reader-friendly document, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) limited the use of acronyms and abbreviations in this Repository supplemental environmental impact statement. In addition, acronyms and abbreviations are defined the first time they are used in each chapter or appendix. The acronyms and abbreviations used in the text of this document are listed below. Acronyms and abbreviations used in tables and figures because of space limitations are listed in footnotes to the tables and figures. °C degrees Celsius CFR Code of Federal Regulations dBA A-weighted decibels DOE U.S. Department of Energy (also called the Department) EIS environmental impact statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency °F degrees Fahrenheit FEIS final environmental impact statement FR Federal Register GNEP Global Nuclear Energy Partnership MTHM metric tons of heavy metal NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less REMI Regional Economic Models, Inc. RMEI reasonably maximally exposed individual SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement Stat. United States Statutes TAD transportation, aging, and disposal (canister) TSPA Total System Performance Assessment U.S.C.
  • An Interview With

    An Interview With

    An Interview with Win BrownOral History produced by Robert D. McCracken Nye County Town History Project Nye County, Nevada Tonopah 2009 COPYRIGHT 2009 Nye County Town History Project Nye County Commissioners Tonopah, Nevada 89049 DeAnna Brown and her husband Darryll Brown 2007 Gwendolyn and Leon Hughes, 1945. From left: Georgie Ann Bell and unidentified woman picking cotton. Pahrump Ranch, Pahrump, Nevada, 1937. Red Schoolhouse, Pahrump, Nevada. From left: Norma Steve, Ben Spencer (his mother was Pahrump's postmistress), Don Ward, Marie Hughes (DeAnna's aunt), DeAnna Hughes (fifth grade), Okemah Spencer (Ben Spencer's sister), 1952. From left: Leon Hughes, DeAnna Hughes, Larry Hughes, Gwendolyn Hughes, 1945. Cabin at Lost Lobo Mine, west side of Charleston Mountains above Pahrump Valley, Nevada, 1990. Portal of Lost Lobo Mine, west side of Charleston Mountains, Nevada, 1990. Children of Gwendolyn and Leon Hughes, 1954. Back row, from left: Leonard, Pam, Oneta, Michael. Front row, from left: Sharon, DeAnna (holding Raymond), and Larry. Children of John and Beryl Hughes, 1942. Standing, from left: Maxine Hughes, Betty Hughes, Byron Hughes, Bea Hughes, Leon Hughes and wife Gwendolyn. Sitting, from left: Baby DeAnna Hughes, John Hughes (DeAnna's grandfather), Kenneth Hughes, Beryl Hughes (DeAnna's grandmother), and Marie Hughes. CONTENTS Preface xi Acknowledgments xiii Introduction xv CHAPTER ONE 1 DeAnna's parents and their life in California; her grandfather John's ranch in Pahrump in the 1930s; DeAnna's childhood, traveling between Pahrump and California; her father, Leon's, attempt to grow cotton in Pahrump early on; John Hughes's mine; living at the Blue Diamond Mine and commuting to high school in Las Vegas; schooling in California and in Pahrump; life in Pahrump before a good road connected it to other communities; working in the cotton fields as a youngster; Leon's farming at the north end of the Pahrump Valley.
  • 185 IBLA 375 Decided June 10, 2015

    185 IBLA 375 Decided June 10, 2015

    GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC 185 IBLA 375 Decided June 10, 2015 United States Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals Interior Board of Land Appeals 801 N. Quincy St., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22203 GYPSUM RESOURCES, LLC IBLA 2012-113 Decided June 10, 2015 Appeal from a decision of the Field Manager, Red Rock/Sloan (Nevada) Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, accepting a relinquishment of an access road right-of-way, and closing the right-of-way file. NVN-065968. Affirmed. 1. Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976: Rights-of-Way–Rights-of-Way: Act of January 21, 1895– Rights-of-Way: Cancellation--Rights-of-Way: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 BLM properly accepts a relinquishment of a right-of-way, originally issued pursuant to section 1 of the Act of January 21, 1895, 43 U.S.C. § 956 (1970) (later conformed to a right-of-way under Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1761-1771 (2006)), and closes the right-of-way file, when the current holder of the right-of-way relinquishes its rights in the right-of-way. BLM properly deems the current holder to be the party presently holding the right-of-way, as a matter of record with BLM, not the current owner of title to private lands accessed by the right-of-way, which, unbeknownst to BLM, had passed by a series of deeds that transferred the lands, together with all “appurtenances.” APPEARANCES: James H. Walton, Esq., and James A.
  • Chapter 3 Affected Environment

    Chapter 3 Affected Environment

    Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 Chapter 3 Affected Environment Final EIS December 2004 Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Final EIS December 2004 Las Vegas Disposal Boundary Chapter 3 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The affected environment is the baseline from BLM lands within the disposal boundary area. which to identify and evaluate environmental The purpose of the surveys was to identify the changes resulting from the proposed action and presence of sensitive environmental resources and alternatives. This chapter focuses on the human to locate potential hazardous materials sites. Bio- environment that has the potential to be affected logical field surveys covered the desert tortoise by implementing the land sale and land use ac- and sensitive plant species including the Las Ve- tions. The human environment potentially af- gas bearpoppy, Las Vegas buckwheat, and pen- fected is interpreted comprehensively to include stemon. Surveys were also completed to locate the natural and physical resources and the rela- historic sites, archaeological sites, and paleon- tionship of people with those resources [40 Code tological resources, and to identify lands with po- of Federal Regulations (CFR) §1508.14]. The tential hazardous materials present. affected environment discussed in this chapter includes air quality, earth resources, water re- 3.1 AIR QUALITY sources, biological resources, cultural and histori- cal resources, Native American concerns, visual Air resources are characterized by the existing resources, land use, recreation and wilderness re- concentrations of various pollutants and the cli- sources, range resources, hazardous materials, matic and meteorological conditions that influ- social and economic conditions, and environ- ence the quality of the air.