Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Forwards DOI Request for LLNL Tritium Tests at Ward Valley - _ . - . - - . .. -_. - .. - - - * . March 19, 1996 NOTE T0: X. Stablein J. Austin ; C. Paperiello M. Bell ' J. Greeves J. Holonich M. Federline B. Reamer M. Weber C. Cameron P. Lohaus J. Kennedy P. Sobel FROM: Nelson,[[[ SUBJECT: DOE STAFF POSITION ON DOI REQUEST FOR LLNL TRITIUM TESTS AT WARD ! VALLEY ! The attached staff position paper was provided to us by Terry Plummer, ! DOE, last week and is forwarded FYI. ; Attachment: As stated | | l, i l ! ! 1 ! t l' 970 g;g,60pe, - 1 - , - - . - - - - - - 4 , ' . I 1 * , . i. > !. 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR REQUEST FOR LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORA'IORY i 70 i PERFORM TRTITUM TF.STS AT WARD VALLEY, CALIFORNIA | f FACTS / BACKGROUND , i - On February 23,1996, John Garamendi, Deputy Secretary of the Depiu unent of the Interior, requested the participation of the De,partment of Energy in contracting with the Lawrence i Livermore National Laboratory to perform tntium tests at the State licensed low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility in Ward Valley, Califomia. * On Demhn 15,1995, Secretary O' leary denied a similar request dated June 8,1995, : from Senator Boxer, (D-CA). 'Ihe Secretary stated that,"We believe the State of California, in its ! licensing role as authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, should determine how to implement the National Academy of Sciences' recommendations. If the State Mermines that further testing is needed based on analytical services unique to the Departmw of Energy, we will consider such a request." l ! + In response to an earlier request of Senator Boxer, Secretary Babbitt asked the National ! Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine several key safety related issues of the site. On May 11, 1995, it announced that while "the potential transfer of contaminants through the unsaturated zone to the water table is highly unlikely...the committee agrees that additional analysis needs to be i done. The majori,ty of the committee believes that this could be donc during constmetion and | operation of the site." The majority further concluded that contamination of the ground water i beneath the site was " highly unlikely" and that the project posed no realistic threat to the Colorado River. * The National Academy of Sciences recommended that a more complete knowledge of ; background tritium levels be obtained over time by using " additional analyses and data from tracers such as 36Cl." Based on the NAS report and on input from other scientists familiar with the . project, Interior's focus on tritium tests of questionable technical reliability appears misplaced. The timing also appears out of context with the Academy's recommendations which focus on improving the States' continuing performance assessment work ; not as a ore-appmval litmus test of site suitability. On September 6,1995, Jay Davis, Associate Director of Environmental Programs at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, stated in a reply to a letter from James Tripodes, Chair of the California Radioactive Materials Management Forum, that "I agree fully with your statement that tritium is not a good measure of moisture infiltration in arid regions." Mr. Davis continued,"I agree fully that the California Department of Health Services should determine what additional tests, if any, should (be) made, when they are necessary, and who should do them. They have the authority and responsibility in this matter." - Public Law 99-240, the low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Amendments Act), required each state to provide for the disposal of LLW generated within its borders by January 1,1993. It also required the Department to provide ongoing technical assistance to states develeping LLW disposal capacity, subject to Congressional appropriations. * Under authonty of the Nuclear Regulatory's Agreement State Program (1959 Agreement | . ! States Amendmen: to the Atomi.c Energy Act of 1954) Califomia issued a license for the disposal site in September 1993 that was conditioned upon the transfer of the land from the Bureau of Land Management. The license has withstood all coun challenges including a January decision by the | California Supreme Coun to decline review of an Appellate Court ruling which found the opponents' challenges were "without merit." + Califomia has committed in writing to perform all tests recommended by the NAS after the land is transferred. - In a letter to the Director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, legal counsel to US Ecology, Inc., the designated licensee, states that, "this action may expose the Laboratory to damage claims by US Ecology, Inc.....the State of California....the other Southwestern LLRW Disposal Compact member states (Arizona, South and Nonh Dakota), and the Compact's LLRW generators." In addition, the letter states that,"It is inevitable that project opponents will challenge the Laboratory's testing protocols and procedures, as well as any results produced." - Governor Pete Wilson stated in a February 16,1996, press release that,"If the White ; House and the Depanment of Interior continue to stand in the way of California's comphance with the LLRW Policy Act, then the Act has been rendered unworkable and must be replaced with a new law that gives this responsibility to the very federal officials who now refuse to leave it to the j states." DJSCUSSION | 6 Since the first national low-level waste legislation was passed in 1980, the Department has established protocols to ensure that requests for technical assistance would be consistent with the ' intent of the legislation. One of these protocols requires that requests for technical assistance come ) from the State or compact officials directly involved in complying with the legislation. Not only is ; this request from the Depanment of Interior clearly not technical assistance to States and compacts under applicable legislation, it is in direct opposition to Califomia's decision on how to implement the NAS' recommendations and may be contrary to the interests of the private firm which has invested more than $60 million of its own funds, consistent with existing law, to obtain a license. - California and its licensee are adamant that the licensing process was thomugh and that the current requests by the Department of Interior are based solely on politics and not the health and safety of Califomians. California's 100,000 pages of administrative record on Ward Valley has been upheld by the State Supreme Court. - California is the first State to issue a license since passage of the Act and under NRC's 10 CFR Pan 61 regulations. Should we not support an agreement state that has met all regulatory requirements, the Department's relationship with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could be unnecessarily strained and negative signal would be sent to other States currently involved in the licensing process. A failure to suppon Califomia would cast a chill on future effons to implement both the law and the regulations and increase the likelihood that Congress would have to revisit the 1985 Act, an action that Congressional leadership has repeatedly refused to do since the Act's passage. I Therefore, delays imposed on'Califomia by the Feds will no doubt raise the ire of Congress and thnist DOE in the middle of the controversy to the extent we participate or support such delays. - Interior's concern that the facility lacks an environmental monitoring system has no basis ; in fact. DOE assisted the State in designing the monitoring system required by license which | improves upon the state of the an as reflected by current practices. - The long, productive relationship with the NAS and the National Research Council, could . ' . also be undermined if DOE ignores the NAS' recommendations on both the uming of the tests and which tests should be performed to confirm site characterization findings. * The $150,000 estir.iate for the work covers only analyzing the samples delivered to . Lawrence Livermore. Su'ostantial additional costs would be incurred in sample preparation. It is also unclear at this time that Quality Assurance requirements have been factored into the estimates. These costs would be bome either the Department of Interior or the Department of Energy if the tests if were preformed now. California would pay for them if the tests were to proceed after the land is transferred. * Given the time necessary to organize the work, take the samples, and perform the analyses under an appropriate Quality Assurance program, it i.4 highly unlikely that the tests could be done within the four months envisioned by Interior. * This is a no win situation for the Deparunent and Lawrence Livermore. If the results of the testing are favorable, past history indicates that opponents will contest the results and possibly sue. If the results are not favorable, California and the states comprising the Southwestern Compact region could join US Ecology in a suit. _ _ Memorandum TO: John Greeves FROM: Doruta Horn DATE: August 20,1996 SUBJECT: Ward Valley Project , 1 -(. The attached is being sent to you for your information. Ifyou have any questions, please let me know. | | | | | 3 | ^h i g$8 >; w c g[ from the desk oL /[h, #$+ f Donna M. Horn (f Governrnent Affairs Coordinator U5 Ecology,Inc. 929 N. Val Vista Drive Suite 107142 Gilbert, AZ 85234 800-409 2251 602-507-2251 fn: 602-507-8469 i >. t ___ ___ ._.-_ _ _ .__... _ _ ___. - _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . l . sTAM oF cEl_f. ""^iTH AND WELFARE AGENCY PEM WluiON, Govi DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES rwr44 e smarr i P.o. scK ter32 , sAcRMeno, CA sease.7sto ' (916) 657-1425 July 11, 1996 . Mr. Edward Hastey State Director U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2800 Cottage Way ; Sacramento, CA 95825 l | 1 WARD VALLEY SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT | Dear Mr. Hastey: On May 17, 1996 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued a "Public Workshop Notice" stating that BLM is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) regarding the , sale of federal land at Ward Valley to the State of California | and inviting the public as part of a scoping process to " identify any new information or issues to be considered in the document." BLM also issued a Notice of Intent to prepare the SEIS.
Recommended publications
  • Recruitment of Desert Tortoises (Gopherus Agassizii and G
    Herpetological Conservation and Biology 10(2):583–591. Submitted: 29 September 2014; Accepted: 7 April 2015; Published: 31 August 2015. RECRUITMENT OF DESERT TORTOISES (GOPHERUS AGASSIZII AND G. MORAFKAI): A SYNTHESIS OF REPRODUCTION AND FIRST-YEAR SURVIVAL STEVEN P. CAMPBELL1,2,3, ROBERT J. STEIDL1, AND ERIN R. ZYLSTRA1 1School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA 2Albany Pine Bush Preserve Commission, Albany, New York 12205, USA 3Corresponding author, email: [email protected] Abstract.—Recruitment is integral to population persistence, therefore characterizing this process is essential for evaluating recovery actions for species in decline. We gathered all data available and used Bayesian analyses to quantify annual recruitment of Mojave Desert (Gopherus agassizii) and Sonoran Desert (G. morafkai) tortoises as the product of four components: proportion of females that reproduced, number of eggs produced per reproducing female, hatching success, and hatchling survival. For Mojave Desert Tortoises, the estimated proportion of females that reproduced (0.81 [95% Credible Interval: 0.52–0.99]) and number of eggs produced per year (6.90 [5.51–8.16]) were higher than for Sonoran Desert Tortoises (0.52 [0.07–0.94] and 5.17 [3.05–7.60], respectively). For Mojave Desert Tortoises, hatching success averaged 0.61 (0.25–0.90). Data on hatching success for Sonoran Desert Tortoises and hatchling survival for both species were sparse, therefore we represented these components with a range of plausible values. When we combined components, average recruitment for Mojave Desert Tortoises ranged from 0.51 females/female/y assuming that hatchling survival was 0.30 to 1.18 females/female/y with hatchling survival assumed to be 0.70.
    [Show full text]
  • Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Rice Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Rice Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-4 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 189,000 acres (295 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Rice Valley in northeast Riverside and southeast San Bernardino Counties. Elevation of the valley floor ranges from about 675 feet above sea level near the center of the valley to about 1,000 feet along the outer margins. The basin is bounded by nonwater- bearing rocks of the Turtle Mountains on the north, the Little Maria and Big Maria Mountains on the south, the Arica Mountains on the west, and by the West Riverside and Riverside Mountains on the east. Low-lying alluvial drainage divides form a portion of the basin boundaries on the northwest and northeast, and the Colorado River bounds a portion of the basin on the east. Maximum elevations of the surrounding mountains range to about 2,000 feet in the Arica Mountains, about 3,000 feet in the Big Maria Mountains, and 5,866 feet at Horn Peak in the Turtle Mountains (Bishop 1963; Jennings 1967; USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Annual average precipitation ranges from about 3 to 5 inches. Surface runoff from the mountains drains towards the center of the valley, except in the eastern part of the valley, where Big Wash drains to the Colorado River (USGS 1971a, 1971b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c). Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Alluvium is the water-bearing material that forms the basin and includes unconsolidated Holocene age deposits and underlying unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Pleistocene deposits (DWR 1954, 1963).
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Assessment for Desert Stateline
    REGIONAL ASSESSMENT STATELINE SOLAR FARM PROJECT BLM CASE FILE NUMBER CACA-48669 Prepared for: Prepared by: Desert Stateline, LLC NatureServe 525 Market Street 4600 North Fairfax Drive 15th Floor 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Arlington, Virginia 22203 Date: 27 July 2012 Cover photo credit: Geoffrey Hammerson NatureServe Project Team Mary Harkness Patrick Crist Conservation Planner/Project Manager Director, Conservation Planning and Ecosystem Management Ian Varley Jacquie Bow Conservation Planner GIS Analyst Jon Hak Geoffrey Hammerson Ecologist/Senior GIS Analyst Research Zoologist Suzanne Young Conservation Biologist and Data Analyst Suggested citation: NatureServe. 2012. Regional assessment: Stateline solar farm project. Technical report prepared for Desert Stateline, LLC. NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Regional Assessment: Stateline Solar Farm Project Page 2 of 94 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose and overview of assessment ........................................................................................... 8 1.2 Assessment approach ................................................................................................................... 8 1.3 Assessment areas and context ...................................................................................................... 8 1.3.1 Ivanpah Valley Watershed ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution and Seasonal Movements of Bendire's Thrasher in California
    WESTERN BIRDS Volume 20, Number 3, 1989 DISTRIBUTION AND SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF BENDIRE'S THRASHER IN CALIFORNIA A. SIDNEY ENGLAND, Departmentof Wildlifeand FisheriesBiology, University of California, Davis. California 95616 WILLIAM E LAUDENSLAYER,JR., U.S. D. A. ForestService, Forestry Sciences Laboratory,2081 E. SierraAvenue, Fresno, California 93710 The ecology and distribution of Bendire's Thrasher (Toxostorna bendirei)have been little studiedand are poorlyunderstood. Garrett and Dunn (1981:280) classifiedthe speciesas a "fairlycommon but very local summer resident on the Mojave Desert" in southern California. Californiabreeding populations are known primarily from the eastern Mojave Desert and scattered locations in and around Joshua Tree NationalMonument in the southernMojave Desert (Johnson et al. 1948, Miller and Stebbins1964, Garrett and Dunn 1981), areas frequently visitedby bird watchersand naturalists. However, recordsfrom other parts of the Mojave and Colorado deserts suggest that breeding populationsof Bendire'sThrasher may be more widely distributedthan currentlyrecognized. Also, the preferredbreeding habitat in Californiais relativelywidespread. This habitatis typicallydescribed as Mojavedesert scrubwith either JoshuaTrees (Yucca brevifolia), SpanishBayonet (Y. baccata), Mojave Yucca (Y. schidigera), cholla cactus (Opuntia acanthocarpa,O. echinocarpa,or O. rarnosissirna),or other succulents (Grinnelland Miller 1944, Bent 1948, Garrett and Dunn 1981). Remsen(1978) consideredthe total Californiabreeding population of Bendire'sThrasher to be under 200 pairs, and the specieshas been placedon the list of Bird Speciesof SpecialConcern by the California Departmentof Fishand Game (Remsen1978). It was placedon this list becausepopulations are smalland locallydistributed and believedto be threatenedby off-roadvehicle use, overgrazing,and harvestingof Joshua Treesand other speciesof yucca. In this paper, we report the resultsof a 2-year studyof the breeding- season distributionand movement patterns of Bendire's Thrasher in California.
    [Show full text]
  • Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment
    Palen Solar Project Water Supply Assessment Prepared by Philip Lowe, P.E. February 2018 Palen Solar Project APPENDIX G. WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 2. Project Location and Description ...................................................................................... 1 3. SB 610 Overview and Applicability .................................................................................... 3 4. Chuckwalla Valley Groundwater Basin .............................................................................. 4 4.1 Basin Overview and Storage ......................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management ............................................................................................................ 5 4.2 Climate .......................................................................................................................................... 5 4.3 Groundwater Trends ...................................................................................................................... 5 4.4 Groundwater Recharge .................................................................................................................. 7 Subsurface Inflow ......................................................................................................................... 7 Recharge from Precipitation .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior RECORD OF
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RECORD OF DECISION for CALIFORNIA DESERT CONSERVATION AREA PLAN AMENDMENT and RIGHT-OF-WAY GRANT/TEMPORARY USE PERMIT for the CADIZ GROUNDWATER STORAGE AND DRY-YEAR SUPPLY PROGRAM San Bernardino County, California Lead Agency: Bureau of Land Management Cooperating Agencies: National Park Service US Geological Survey BLM Case File No. CA-40467 OEPC DES 01-32 OEPC SES 01-32 OEPC FES 01-32 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 3 I. DECISIONS .................................................................................................................. 7 II. AUTHORITY ............................................................................................................ 10 III. RATIONALE ........................................................................................................... 10 IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................................ 17 V. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................... 20 FIGURES Figure 1: Approved Alignment and Generalized Location Figure 2: Cadiz Project Alternatives APPENDICES Appendix A: Terms and Conditions Appendix B: Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion Appendix C: Final Clean Air Act Conformity Determination Appendix D: Findings and Determinations for Historic Properties Appendix E: Response to Public Comments on FEIS/EIR
    [Show full text]
  • By Express Mail, Email, and Facsimile August 27, 2012 BLM Director (210) Attention: Brenda Williams 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM
    Michael J. Connor, Ph.D. California Director P.O. Box 2364, Reseda, CA 91337-2364 Tel: (818) 345-0425 Email: [email protected] Web site: www.westernwatersheds.org Working to protect and restore Western Watersheds By Express Mail, Email, and Facsimile August 27, 2012 BLM Director (210) Attention: Brenda Williams 20 M Street SE., Room 2134LM Washington, DC 20003 Email: [email protected] Fax: (202) 452-5112 PROTEST OF THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES Dear Ms. Hudgens-Williams: Pursuant to the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.5-2, Western Watersheds Project hereby protests the Proposed Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement For Solar Energy Development In Six Southwestern States “Solar PEIS”). This protest is filed on behalf of the staff and members of Western Watersheds Project in accordance with 43 C.F.R. §1610.5-2 and contains: a description of the interests of the protesting party; a statement of the issues being protested; a statement of the parts of the Proposed RMP being protested; and, a concise statement explaining the various ways that the BLM acted unlawfully or in error. Western Watersheds Project submitted extensive comments during the scoping and various comment periods, proposed alternatives that would avoid or minimize environmental impacts, and repeatedly raised issues and concerns that remain unaddressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (“FEIS”). This protest is being submitted on behalf of Western Watersheds Project and its staff and members by Michael J. Connor, Ph.D., California Director for Western Watersheds Project.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Groundwater Update 2013
    California’s Groundwater Update 2013 A Compilation of Enhanced Content for California Water Plan Update 2013 April 2015 State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Water Resources COLORADO RIVER HYDROLOGIC REGION Table of Contents Contents Chapter 12. Colorado River Hydrologic Region Groundwater Update ................................................. i Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Findings, Data Gaps, and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 3 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Supply and Development ............................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Use and Aquifer Conditions ........................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Monitoring Efforts ...................................................................................................... 4 Groundwater Management and Conjunctive Management ............................................................... 4 Data Gaps .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Data Collection and Analysis ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Desert Tortoise - Rangewide October 22, 2008
    Status of the Desert Tortoise - Rangewide October 22, 2008 1. Listing History On August 20, 1980, the Service published a final rule listing the Beaver Dam Slope population of the desert tortoise in Utah as threatened (45 FR 55654). In the 1980 listing of the Beaver Dam Slope population, the Service concurrently designated 26 square miles ofBLM-administered land in Utah as eritical habitat. The reason for listing was population deelines because of habitat deterioration and past over-colleetion. Major threats to the tortoise identified in the rule ineluded habitat destruetion through development, overgrazing, and geothermal development; eolleetion for pets, malicious killing, road kills, and competition with grazing or feral animals. On August 4, 1989, the Serviee published an emergeney rule listing the Mojave population of the desert tortoise as endangered (54 FR 42270). On April 2, 1990, the Serviee determined the Mojave population of the desert tortoise to be threatened (55 FR 12178). Reasons for the determination ineluded signifieant population deelines, loss of habitat fi'om construetion projects such as roads, housing and energy developments, and conversion of native habitat to agrieulture. Livestoek grazing and off~highway vehiele (OHV) activity have degraded additional habitat. Also cited as threatening the desert tOlloise's continuing existenee were illegal collection by humans for pets or consumption, upper respiratory traet disease (URTD), predation on juvenile desert tortoises by eommon ravens (Corvus corax), coyotes (Canis la/rans), and kit foxes (Vulpes macro/is), fire, and collisions with vehieles on paved and unpaved roads. On February 8, 1994, the Service designated approximately 6.45 million acres of critical habitat for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise in pOllions of California (4.75 million acres), Nevada (1.22 million acres), Arizona (339 thousand acres), and Utah (129 thousand acres) (59 FR 5820-5846, also see corrections in 59 FR 9032-9036), which became effective on March 10, 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • Ward Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118
    Colorado River Hydrologic Region California’s Groundwater Ward Valley Groundwater Basin Bulletin 118 Ward Valley Groundwater Basin • Groundwater Basin Number: 7-03 • County: Riverside, San Bernardino • Surface Area: 961,000 acres (1,500 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology This groundwater basin underlies Ward and Danby Valleys in southern San Bernardino County. The basin is bounded by nonwater-bearing rocks of the Old Woman Mountains on the west, of the Piute Mountains on the northwest, of the Turtle and Stepladder Mountains on the east, of the Sacramento Mountains on the northeast, and of the Iron Mountains and by an unnamed fault on the southwest (Bishop 1963). The valley is drained by Homer Wash to Danby (Dry) Lake (Bishop 1963). Average annual precipitation ranges from 4 to 8 inches. Hydrogeologic Information Water Bearing Formations Groundwater in the basin is found in alluvium, fan deposits, and playa deposits. These materials can reach near 2,000 feet thick, and well yields in this basin range from about 10 to 260 gpm (Committee 1995). Alluvium. Alluvium of Holocene to Pleistocene age consists of unconsolidated to well-sorted, fine- to coarse-grained sand, pebbles, and boulders with variable amounts of silt and clay (DWR 1967). Fan Deposits. Fan deposits of Pleistocene age are composed of gently tilted unconsolidated to moderately consolidated and moderately well bedded gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Fan deposits of Holocene age consist of poorly sorted gravel derived from the local mountains (DWR 1967). Playa Deposits. Playa deposits of Holocene age are composed of clay with some sand, silt, and various amounts of soluble salts.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleontological Resources
    Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS CHAPTER III.10. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES III.10 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES A paleontological resource is defined in the federal Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) as the “fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of organisms, preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information about the history of life on earth” (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470aaa[1][c]). For the purpose of this analysis, a significant paleontological resource is “considered to be of scientific interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and traces, and certain rare or unusual inverte- brate and plant fossils. A significant paleontological resource is considered to be scientifically important for one or more of the following reasons: It is a rare or previously unknown species It is of high quality and well preserved It preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic It provides new information about the history of life on earth It has identified educational or recreational value. Paleontological resources that may be considered not to have paleontological significance include those that lack provenance or context, lack physical integrity because of decay or natural erosion, or are overly redundant or otherwise not useful for academic research” (Bureau of Land Management [BLM] Instruction Memorandum [IM] 2009-011; included in Appendix R2). The intrinsic value of paleontological resources largely stems from the fact that fossils serve as the only direct evidence of prehistoric life. They are thus used to understand the history of life on Earth, the nature of past environments and climates, the biological mem- bership and structure of ancient ecosystems, and the pattern and process of organic evolution and extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • San Bernardino County Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
    SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM This form and the descriptive information in the application package constitute the contents of Initial Study pursuant to County Guidelines under Ordinance 3040 and Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines. PROJECT LABEL: USGS Quad: Danby Lake APNs: 0646-041-08 (all), -09 (portion), -16 (portion), -17 (portion) Applicant: Valley Salt, LLC T, R, Section: T1N, R18E, 10, 11, 14, 15 Location Approximately 43 miles west of Parker, Thomas Bros Map E, San Bernardino and Riverside Arizona and 55 miles east of 29 Palms Counties (2013) in southeastern San Bernardino County, California Project PROJ-2020-00107 Community N/A No: Plan: Rep Lilburn Corporation LUC: Resource/Land Management (RLM) Zone: Resource Conservation Proposal: Operation of a sodium or salt mine on Overlays: N/A 481 acres located entirely on BLM land for up to 51 years. PROJECT CONTACT INFORMATION: Lead agency: County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, 1st Floor San Bernardino, CA 92415-0182 Contact person: Reuben Arceo, Planner Phone No: (909) 387-4387 Fax No: (909) 387-3223 E-mail: [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Summary Valley Salt, LLC (Valley Salt) has submitted a Reclamation Plan for their Danby Dry Lake Sodium Lease (CALA 0 139523) mining and processing operations and reclamation on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) managed public lands in compliance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (PRC Section 2710 et seq., “SMARA”). SMARA is implemented by the County of San Bernardino (County) through County Development Code Chapter 88.03.
    [Show full text]