DOE/EA-1470: Environmental Assessment Harry Allen-Mead 500
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Big Springs Ethnographic Assessment
Pah ¡chi (From Big Spring Running Down) ig Springs Ethnographic Assessment US -J5 Corridor Study OURCE GROUP REPORT NO. 34 Prepared by: Nevada ` Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Services and Federal Highway Administration Environmental Consultants: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada September 1998 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Pah hu wichi(From Big Spring Running Down): Big Spring Ethnographic Assessment US 95 Corridor Study September 1998 BUREAU OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN ANTHROPOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables v List of Figures vii Acknowledgments vii Foreword x Chapter One Study Overview 1 Brief Description of the Project 1 Cultural Affiliation and Involved American Indian Tribes 2 The Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology 3 Native American Cultural Resource Revitalization 3 University of Arizona Study Team 4 Selection of Interview Sites 5 Interview Forms and Analysis 10 Data Analysis 10 Chronology of Work 13 Daily Schedule 13 Chapter Two Contextualizing Indian Opinions 15 Paiute Views of Their Culture 15 Creation Stories 18 Traditional Southern Paiute Political Units 20 The High Chiefs 20 Chiefs of Alliance 21 Disease and Sociopolitical Disruption 22 1840 - 1875 Depopulation 24 1875 -1900 Depopulation 24 Twentieth Century High Chiefs 26 Chief Tecopa 26 Continuities in Southern Paiute Political Leadership 26 Chief Penance 26 Chief Skinner 27 Technical Terms 28 Technical Term #1: Cultural Affiliation 28 Traditional Period 28 Aboriginal Period 29 Historic Period 29 Ownership of Land 30 Response -
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV0S010-2009-1014-EA May 2016 Eastern Nevada Transmission Project APPLICANT Silver State Energy Association GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086357 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, NV 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need ...................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Background ........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action .........................................................................................2 1.4 Decisions to be Made .....................................................................................................7 1.5 BLM Policies, Plans, Authorizing Actions, and Permit Requirements .........................7 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ........................................................................9 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Regulatory Framework for Alternatives -
Transmission Plan
2017-2018 TRANSMISSION PLAN March 14, 2018 REVISED DRAFT Foreword to Revised Draft 2017-2018 Transmission Plan This revised draft transmission plan reflects a number of changes from the draft plan released on February 1, 2018. To assist our stakeholders following the transmission plan cycle, we have summarized a number of those changes, with particular emphasis on a number of projects where the recommendations have progressed since the release on February 1 and the subsequent stakeholder meeting on February 8: • The model estimating the impact of the transmission plan on the ISO’s High Voltage TAC has been updated and the results added to the model. • The Oakland Clean Energy Initiative project is recommended for approval • The Phasor Measurement Unit project has been added and is recommended for approval • The Bridgerville-Garberville #2 115 kV line project is recommended to remain on hold. • The Kearney-Caruthers 70 kV Line Reonductor project is recommended to proceed with the original scope. • The recommended revised scope for the Kern 115 kV Area Reinfoement has been updated as presented at the February 8 stakeholder meeting. • Section 2.10 addressing the need for phasor measurement units to be installed on all ISO balancing authority area interties has been added. • Several projects approved in the 2016-2017 transmission planning cycle have been added to Table 7.1-1: Status of Previously-approved Projects Costing Less than $50M, that had been omitted from the table in the Draft 2017-2018 Transmission Plan. • The in-service date for a number of previously approved projects have been updated. A number of clarifications and edits have also been added throughout the plan to address other stakeholder comments. -
Clark County Environmentally Sensitive Lands Double Canyon !( Arrow Canyon !( !( Moapa Muddy Spring Bunkerville
Mesquite Clark County Environmentally Sensitive Lands Double Canyon !( Arrow Canyon !( !( Moapa Muddy Spring Bunkerville Moapa Valley ESL - Priority 1 Hidden Forest Cabin !( Logandale Indian Springs Weiser Bowl Overton ESL - Priority 2 !( !( Moapa Indian Springs Pueblo Grande de Nevada Tribal Lands !( ESL - Priority 3 The Narrows !( ESL - Priority 4 Fossil Ridge !( Devils Throat Mud Spring Copper Spring !( !( Willow Spring Corn Creek Campsite !( !( !( ESL - Priority 5 Gass Peak Lee Canyon !( !( Marble Quarry ESL - Priority 6 Charcoal Kilns Las Vegas Paiute !( Muddy Mountains !( Mt. Charleston Tribal Lands !( !( Lower Kyle Canyon Horse Spring !( Bitter Spring ESL - Priority 7 !( Ca!(mp Lee Canyon !( Mary Jane Falls !( !(Big Falls Kyle Canyon Gold Butte !( !( !( Charleston Peak !( Lee Spring Red Stone BLM Disposal Areas !( Gypsum Cave !( !( Griffith Peak !( Bowl of Fire !( Great Unconformity Overthrust !( Non-ESL Administrative Areas !( !( !( Calico Hills Coal Spring !( Bonelli Peak !( Lava Butte !( !( !( Red Rock Rainbow Gardens !( !( Boulder City Conservation Easement Willow Spring Red Rock !( Sandstone Ranch Scenic Highways and Federal Byways !( !( Oliver Ranch !( Mountain Spring River Mountain Hoover Dam Hoover Dam !( !( !( !( Aesthetic,Historic and Cultural Sites Potosi !( Mountain Springs Mt. Potosi Black Mountain !( Black Canyon !( Keystone Spring !( Bird Spring !( Shenandoah Peak !( Goodsprings Sandy Valley !( Columbia Pass Eldorado Canyon !( Devil Peak McClanahan Spring Keyhole Canyon !( !( McCullough Spring !( !( Oro Hanna Spring !( Highland Spring !( Cow Spring !( Wild Horse Spring Date: Jauary 29, 2004 !( Joshua Forest !( Crescent Peak !( 0 39,990 79,980 119,970 159,960 Searchlight SCALE IN FEET Source: Clark County Central Repository Spirit Mountain This information is for display purposes only. !( Christmas Tree Pass !( No liability is assumed as to the accuracy of the data delineated hereon. -
National Speleologi'c-Al Society
Bulletin Number Five NATIONAL SPELEOLOGI'C-AL SOCIETY n this Issue: CAVES IN WORLD HISTORY . B ~ BERT MORGAN THE GEM OF CAVES' . .. .. • B DALE WHITE CA VE FAUN A, with Recent Additions to the Lit ture Bl J. A. FOWLER CAT ALOG OF THE SOCIETY LJBR R . B)' ROBERT S. BRAY OCTOBER, 1943 PRJ E 1.0 0 . ------------------------------------------- .-'~ BULLETIN OF THE NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY Issue Number Five October, 1943 750 Copies. 64 Pages Published sporadically by THE NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, 510 Scar Building, Washington, D. c., ac $1.00 per copy. Copyrighc, 1943, by THE NATIONAL SPELEOLOGICAL SOCIETY. EDITOR: DON BLOCH 5606 Sonoma Road, Bethesda-14, Maryland ASSOCIATE EDITORS: ROBERT BRAY WILLIAM J. STEPHENSON J. S. PETRIE OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN *WM. ]. STEPHENSON J. S. PETR'IE *LEROY FOOTE F. DURR President Vice·Prcsidet1l & Secretary Treasurer Pina~iaJ Sect'eIM"J 7108 Prospect Avenue 400 S. Glebe Road R. D. 3 2005 Kansas Avenue Richmond, Va. Arlin-glon, Va. Waterbury, Conn. Richmond, Va. Archeology Fauna Hydrology Programs &. Activities FLOYD BARLOGA JAMES FOWLER DR. WM. M. MCGILL DR. JAMES BENN 202·8 Lee Boulevard 6420 14th Street 6 Wayside Place, University U. S. Nat. Museum Arlington, Va. Washington, D . C. Charlottesville, Va. Washington, D. C. Bibliography &. Library Finance Mapping PubliCity *ROBERT BRAY *l.EROY FOOTB GBORGE CRABB *·Lou KLBWEJ.t R. F. D. 2 R. F. D. 3 P. O. Box 791 Toledo Blade Herndon, Va. Waterbury, Conn. Blacksburg, Va. Toledo, Ohio BuIletin &. Publications Folklore Metnbership DON BLOCH "'CLAY PERRY SAM ALLBN RECORDS 5606 Sonoma Road East Acres 1226 Wel.Jesley Avenue *FLORENCE WHITLI!Y Deorhesda, Md. -
Gained, but Also for the Geological Chronology-Particularly for the Record of Lake Lahontan Fluctuation and Deposition-It Was Anticipated Would Be Revealed
103 IV. Projectile Points from Hidden Cave (NV-Ch-16) Churchill County, Nevada Norman L. Roust and C. W. Clewlow, Jr. In the summer of 1951, the site of Hidden Cave was excavated by N. L. Roust and G. L. Grosscup, then of the University of California. This site, located 4104 feet above sea level in an arroyo at the southwestern extension of the Stillwater Range and some seventeen miles southeast of Fallon, Nevada., was chosen at the suggestion of Professor Robert F. Heizer and Dr. Roger Morrison, not only for the archaeological information to be gained, but also for the geological chronology-particularly for the record of Lake Lahontan fluctuation and deposition-it was anticipated would be revealed. While the excavations were rewarding both archaeologically and geologically, various circumstances have intervened so that the full report of the excavation has not yet been published, although the data are on file in the manuscript records of the Archaeological Research Fpcility, Berkeley (Roust and Grosscup n.d.). There have been, however, a number of published reports on various aspects of the work accomplished. Preliminary information on the project was provided by Grosscup (1956:58-64). In 1967, an analysis of human copro- lites from Hidden Cave and other sites in the Carson -Humboldt sink area was conducted and the results reported (Ambro 1967; Roust 1967). Two fish nets from Hidden Cave were described by Ambro (1966), and various references have been made to the projectile point sequence (Clewlow 1967; O'Connell 1967). It is the aim of this paper to present a full report on the point sequence at Hidden Cave as recorded at that time. -
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Final Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2010-0091-EA November 2014 Southern Nevada Intertie Project APPLICANT Great Basin Transmission, LLC GENERAL LOCATION Clark County, Nevada BLM CASE FILE SERIAL NUMBER N-086359 PREPARING OFFICE U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office 4701 N. Torrey Pines Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89130 Phone: (702) 515-5172 Fax: (702) 515-5010 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1. Identifying Information ...................................................................................... 1-2 1.1.1. Title, EA Number, and Type of Project .............................................. 1-2 1.1.2. Location of Proposed Action ............................................................... 1-2 1.1.3. Name and Location of Preparing Office ............................................. 1-2 1.1.4. Identify the Case File Number ............................................................ 1-2 1.1.5. Applicant Name ................................................................................... 1-2 1.2. Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................. 1-2 1.2.1. Background ......................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2. BLM Purpose and Need ..................................................................... -
EB-2011-0140 in the MATTER of Sections 70
EB-2011-0140 IN THE MATTER OF sections 70 and 78 of the Ontario Energy Board Act 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15 (Schedule B); AND IN THE MATTER OF a Board-initiated proceeding to designate an electricity transmitter to undertake development work for a new electricity transmission line between Northeast and Northwest Ontario: the East-West Tie line. INTERROGATORIES OF RES CANADA TRANSMISSION LP to EWT L.P. January 30, 2013 12115001_5|TORDOCS EB-2011-0140 Interrogatories of RES Canada Transmission LP to EWT L.P. Filed: January 30, 2013 Page 2 of 24 Interrogatory #1 Project Schedules Reference: a. AltaLink: Part B, Section 7 b. EWT: Part B, Exhibit 7 c. CNPI: Part B, Section 7 d. Iccon/TPT: Volume 1, Section 7 e. UCT: Section B, Section 7 f. RES: Exhibit N Preamble: Each applicant has prepared development and construction cost estimates that are dependent, inter alia, upon underpinning project schedule assumptions. Some applicants have assumed aggressive project schedules. For example, both UCT and EWT assume that the leave to construct process – from application to decision – can be completed in less than one year. The generalized phase-by-phase project schedule of each applicant is shown in the table below. The questions below are intended to test the reasonableness of the scheduling assumption and the sensitivity of development and construction cost estimates to changes in the project schedule that underpins each such estimate. Table 1: Project Schedules Questions: a. What evidence can EWT offer that a nine month leave-to-construct phase – from application to decision – is reasonable and achievable? 12115001_5|TORDOCS EB-2011-0140 Interrogatories of RES Canada Transmission LP to EWT L.P. -
Past and Ongoing Shifts in Joshua Tree Distribution Support Future Modeled Range Contraction
Ecological Applications, 21(1), 2011, pp. 137–149 Ó 2011 by the Ecological Society of America Past and ongoing shifts in Joshua tree distribution support future modeled range contraction 1,7 2 3 4 5,8 6 KENNETH L. COLE, KIRSTEN IRONSIDE, JON EISCHEID, GREGG GARFIN, PHILLIP B. DUFFY, AND CHRIS TONEY 1USGS, Colorado Plateau Research Station, P.O. Box 5614, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 USA 2Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, Northern Arizona University, P.O. Box 4071, Flagstaff, Arizona 86011 USA 3NOAA Earth Systems Research Laboratory, 325 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80305 USA 4Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85719 USA 5Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and University of California, Merced, California 94550 USA 6USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, Montana 59808 USA Abstract. The future distribution of the Joshua tree (Yucca brevifolia) is projected by combining a geostatistical analysis of 20th-century climates over its current range, future modeled climates, and paleoecological data showing its response to a past similar climate change. As climate rapidly warmed ;11 700 years ago, the range of Joshua tree contracted, leaving only the populations near what had been its northernmost limit. Its ability to spread northward into new suitable habitats after this time may have been inhibited by the somewhat earlier extinction of megafaunal dispersers, especially the Shasta ground sloth. We applied a model of climate suitability for Joshua tree, developed from its 20th-century range and climates, to future climates modeled through a set of six individual general circulation models (GCM) and one suite of 22 models for the late 21st century. -
Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region's
FINAL Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region’s Facilities Historic Context Statement Edited by Lisa M. Meyer September 2014 FINAL Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Region’s Facilities Historic Context Edited by Lisa M. Meyer September 2014 DSW Region’s Facilities Historic Context Statement CONTENTS Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................. 1-1 Data Sources Consulted ......................................................................................................... 1-5 Current Document ................................................................................................................. 1-8 2. Statement of Context Part 1: DSW Region’s Transmission Power Systems………………………………………… ...................................................................................... 2-1 Temporal Context .................................................................................................................. 2-1 Geographic Context ............................................................................................................... 2-1 Historic Context .................................................................................................................... -
CULTURAL RESOURCES Prepared by Michael D
CULTURAL RESOURCES Prepared by Michael D. McGuirt and Sarah C. Murray SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Energy Commission staff (hereinafter jointly referred to as “staff”) conclude that the ISEGS project would have no significant direct or indirect impacts on known, NRHP- or CRHR-eligible archaeological, ethnographic, or built-environment resources. Staff also concludes that the implementation of proposed Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 and CUL- 10 would reduce to less than significant, direct or indirect impacts to any such resources that are found during the course of the construction, operation, maintenance, closure, or decommissioning of the project. Staff further concludes that without mitigation, the effect of the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System (ISEGS) project on the Hoover Dam-to- San Bernardino transmission line, a historically significant built-environment resource, would be cumulatively considerable and would contribute to a significant cumulative effect on the environment. The adoption and implementation of Conditions of Certification CUL-8 and CUL-9 (mitigation measures) would render the potential effect of the proposed project on the resource less than cumulatively considerable. Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 and CUL-10 take into account the extensive and thorough field investigations that Bright Source (applicant) undertook for the present analysis and underwrites the recommendation of staff that the applicant be given substantial relief from routine monitoring requirements. The adoption and implementation of Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 and CUL-10 ensure that the applicant would be able to respond quickly and effectively to what staff concludes is the highly improbable event that archaeological sites are found on the surface of the project area or buried beneath it during construction-related ground disturbance. -
Ha`Tata (The Backbone of the River): American Indian Ethnographic Studies Regarding the Hoover Dam Bypass Project
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Ha`tata (The Backbone of the River): American Indian Ethnographic Studies Regarding the Hoover Dam Bypass Project July 2000 BUREAU OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN ANTHROPOLOGY Ha‘tata (The Backbone of the River): American Indian Ethnographic Studies Regarding the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Prepared For CH2M HILL, Inc. 2030 E. Flamingo Road, Suite 160 Las Vegas, Nevada and Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division Denver, Colorado Prepared By Richard W. Stoffle, Ph.D. M. Nieves Zedeno, Ph.D. Amy Eisenberg, M.S. Rebecca Toupal, M.L.A. Alex K. Carroll, M.A. Fabio Pittaluga, M.A. John Amato, LPN Tray G. Earnest, B.A. Genevieve Dewey, B.A. Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology The University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 With a Contribution by Henry F. Dobyns Revised July 12, 2000 Foreword This foreword clarifies some issues of interpretation that may arise during the reading of this report. First and foremost, this is a report of ideas that have been expressed by American Indian elders officially sent by their tribal governments to talk about places connected with the proposed Hoover Dam Bypass project. Second, this report provides ethnographic and ethnohistorical background, which serves to contextualize the statements of Indian people. This background analysis is designed to help the reader better understand the Indian statements by knowing that they have time- depth, ethnographic foundations, and historical documentation. Indian statements stand on their own authority, and the background analysis is not meant as a step toward validating these statements. The Hoover Dam Bypass project is in its the final stages of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).