DOCSLIB.ORG

October 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
October 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank National Park Service Rehabilitate Failing Park Sewage System U.S. Department of the Interior Bryce Canyon National Park Environmental Assessment Bryce Canyon, Utah October 2010 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ V PURPOSE AND NEED ..............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................................................3 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................................................3 Relationship to Other Plans and Policies................................................................................................3 Appropriate Use .....................................................................................................................................4 Scoping...................................................................................................................................................5 Impact Topics Retained for Further Analysis.........................................................................................5 Threatened, Endangered, Rare, and Protected Species (Utah Prairie Dog Only) ............................6 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................6 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................6 Visitor Use and Experience .............................................................................................................6 Impact Topics Dismissed From Further Analysis ..................................................................................7 Threatened, Endangered, Rare, and Protected Species (UPD Excluded) ........................................7 State Listed or Other Sensitive Species ...........................................................................................8 Topography, Geology, and Soils .....................................................................................................9 Paleontological Resources ...............................................................................................................9 Archeological Resources ...............................................................................................................10 Ethnographic Resources.................................................................................................................10 Cultural Landscapes.......................................................................................................................11 Historic Structures and Districts ....................................................................................................11 Museum Collections ......................................................................................................................12 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................12 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................................13 Floodplains.....................................................................................................................................14 Air Quality .....................................................................................................................................14 Natural Soundscapes......................................................................................................................15 Lightscapes ....................................................................................................................................15 Socioeconomics .............................................................................................................................15 Prime and Unique Farmlands.........................................................................................................15 Indian Trust Resources ..................................................................................................................16 Environmental Justice....................................................................................................................16 Climate Change..............................................................................................................................16 Park Operations..............................................................................................................................16 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .........................................................................................................17 Alternatives Carried Forward...............................................................................................................17 Alternative A – No-Action.............................................................................................................17 Alternative B – Open-Cut Trench Method ....................................................................................17 Alternative C – Pipe Bursting Methodology through Utah Prairie Dog Occupied Areas (Preferred Alternative)...................................................................................................................18 Mitigation Measures.............................................................................................................................20 i Alternatives Considered and Dismissed...............................................................................................25 Alternative Summaries .........................................................................................................................25 Identification of the Environmentally Preferred Alternative................................................................29 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..............................30 Cumulative Effects ...............................................................................................................................30 Threatened, Endangered, Rare, and Protected Species (UPD Only)....................................................32 Intensity Level Definitions ............................................................................................................34 Impacts of Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) ........................................................................34 Impacts of Alternative B (Open-Cut Trench Method)...................................................................35 Impacts of Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................36 Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................37 Affected Environment....................................................................................................................37 Intensity Level Definitions ............................................................................................................38 Impacts of Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) ........................................................................38 Impacts of Alternative B (Open-Cut Trench Method)...................................................................39 Impacts of Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................39 Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................40 Affected Environment....................................................................................................................40 Intensity Level Definitions ............................................................................................................41 Impacts of Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) ........................................................................41 Impacts of Alternative B (Open-Cut Trench Method)...................................................................42 Impacts of Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................43 Visitor Use and Experience..................................................................................................................43 Intensity Level Definitions ............................................................................................................44 Impacts of Alternative A (No-Action Alternative) ........................................................................44 Impacts of Alternative B (Open-Cut Trench Method)...................................................................45 Impacts of Alternative C (Preferred Alternative) ..........................................................................46 CONSULTATION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Asos) Implementation Plan
    AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VAISALA CEILOMETER - CL31 November 14, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service / Office of Operational Systems/Observing Systems Branch National Weather Service / Office of Science and Technology/Development Branch Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary............................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................. 2 1.3 Scope.................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicable Documents......................................................... 2 1.5 Points of Contact.................................................................. 4 2.0 Pre-Operational Implementation Activities ............................ 6 3.0 Operational Implementation Planning Activities ................... 6 3.1 Planning/Decision Activities ............................................... 7 3.2 Logistic Support Activities .................................................. 11 3.3 Configuration Management (CM) Activities....................... 12 3.4 Operational Support Activities ............................................ 12 4.0 Operational Implementation (OI) Activities .........................
    [Show full text]
  • United Airlines Flight 608 Accident Report
    .,SA-I 53 File No. 1-0097-47 ) CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD I ACCIDENT I W ESTIGATOO I I Adopted: February 2, 1948 . Released: February 3, 19y8 UNITED AIR LlhES, INC., BRYCE CANYON, UTAH, OCTOXR 24, 1947 The Accident - United Air Lines I Flight 608 crashed observed what appeared 'to be white smoke at 1229 MST,2 October 24, 1947, 1 1/2 streaming from the aircraft, followed miles southeast of Bryce Canyon Airport, later by dense black smoke. The first Utah, during an attempted emergency witnesses who observed fire in the bottom landing resulting from a fire in flight. of the aircr8ft at approximately the The aircraft, a Model DC-6, NC 37510, center-section were located approxi- was demolished by impact and fire, and mately 15 miles south of Bryce Canyon. all of the 46 passengers and the crew of Until shortly before the moment of im- 6 were killed. pact,. the aircraft appeared to be under normal control; hawever, no_,witnesses History of the FI ight were located who observed the, crash. Flight 608 departed Los Angeles, Cal- ifornia, at 1023 with its destination I nvest i gat ion Chicago, Illinois, to cruise at 19,000 Immediately after the accident the feet according to visual flight rules. wreckage was protected by Civil Aeronau- Routine position reports were made over tics Administration personnel until a Fontana, Daggett and Silver Lake, Cali- guard was established by the National' fornia; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Sdint Park Service, pending the arrival of George, Utah. During the latter report, Board investigators. During the evening the flight indicated that it estimated of the same day various investigation passing over Bryce Canyon, Utah, at 1222.
    [Show full text]
  • Ferron City General Plan Survey
    General Plan for the City of Ferron 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1-1 PLAN INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1-1 Plan Update..........................................................................................................................1-2 The Survey ...........................................................................................................................1-3 Specific Plans.......................................................................................................................1-4 MOTTO , MISSION , AND VISION .....................................................................................................1-4 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...............................................................................................................1-6 Project Action Plan ...............................................................................................................1-6 Manage Growth Strategy .....................................................................................................1-6 AMENDMENTS .............................................................................................................................1-7 HISTORY OF FERRON ..................................................................................................................1-7 DEMOGRAPHICS ..........................................................................................................................1-8
    [Show full text]
  • January 2, 2020 Notices to Airmen
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES TO AIRMEN Domestic/International January 2, 2020 Next Issue January 30, 2020 Notices to Airmen included in this publication are NOT given during pilot briefings unless specifically requested by the pilot. An electronic version of this publication is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices Air Traffic Products and Publications Team NOTICES TO AIRMEN - January 2, 2020 Part 2. INTERNATIONAL NOTICES TO AIRMEN Notices to Airmen International GENERAL This part features significant international notices to airmen (NOTAM) information and special notices. The information contained in the International Notices to Airmen section is derived from international notices and other official sources. International notices are of two types: Class One International Notices are those NOTAMs issued via telecommunications. They are made available to the U.S. flying public by the International NOTAM Office (Washington, DC) through the local Flight Service Station (FSS). Class Two International Notices are NOTAMs issued via postal services and are not readily available to the U.S. flying public. The International Notices to Airmen draws from both these sources and also includes information about temporary hazardous conditions which are not otherwise readily available to the flyer. Before any international flight, always update the International Notices to Airmen with a review of Class One International Notices available at your closest FSS. Foreign notices carried in this publication are carried as issued to the maximum extent possible. Most abbreviations used in this publication are listed in ICAO Document DOC 8400. Wherever possible, the source of the information is included at the end of an entry.
    [Show full text]
  • Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Northern Colorado Plateau Network
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Northern Colorado Plateau Network Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2006/002 ON THE COVER Hickman Bridge—Capitol Reef National Park Photograph copyrighted by Jim Ashby Weather and Climate Inventory National Park Service Northern Colorado Plateau Network Natural Resource Technical Report NPS/NCPN/NRTR—2006/002 WRCC Report 06-03 Christopher A. Davey, Kelly T. Redmond, and David B. Simeral Western Regional Climate Center Desert Research Institute 2215 Raggio Parkway Reno, Nevada 89512-1095 August 2006 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Fort Collins, Colorado The Natural Resource Publication series addresses natural resource topics that are of interest and applicability to a broad readership in the National Park Service and to others in the management of natural resources, including the scientific community, the public, and the National Park Service conservation and environmental constituencies. Manuscripts are peer-reviewed to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. The Natural Resource Technical Reports series is used to disseminate the peer-reviewed results of scientific studies in the physical, biological, and social sciences for both the advancement of science and the achievement of the National Park Service’s mission. The reports provide contributors with a forum for displaying comprehensive data that are often deleted from journals because of page limitations. Current examples of such reports include the results of research that addresses natural resource management issues; natural resource inventory and monitoring activities; resource assessment reports; scientific literature reviews; and peer reviewed proceedings of technical workshops, conferences, or symposia.
    [Show full text]
  • Lagoon Amusement Park Customer Case Study
    Lagoon Amusement Park Customer case study Printing ID Cards at the Speed of a Thrill Ride at Lagoon Amusement Park Amusement parks are all about speed. Whether it’s riding a massive roller coaster or plummeting 70 feet inside a tubular water slide, guests want to go fast. The Lagoon Amusement Park in Farmington, Utah, likes things fast, too. For more than 100 years, it has offered exhilarating thrill rides as part of its entertainment package. The park’s Fire Dragon double-loop rollercoaster hits speeds of 90 kilometers per hour, and its Lagoon-A-Beach Waterpark promises 550,000 gallons of liquid fun. Like many other parks, Lagoon provides identification cards to its employees and offers season passes (called Season Passports) with identification cards to its guests. But the equipment formerly used to print the cards was not keeping up with the pace of the park. “As the public demand for Season Passports increased, it was becoming more difficult to keep up with the desired pace,” said Nic Young, ticketing manager. “We used to take Polaroid pictures and laminate them onto pre-printed cards, but matching the pictures with the cards was tricky. It was easy to put the wrong picture on someone’s card.” The multi-step process also was slow and cumbersome – not a minor concern with 2,500 employee ID badges and more than 30,000 season passes issued every year. Lagoon now is able to satisfy the needs of its employees and guests with the updated card printing technology, bringing the park back to its desired speed.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Day at Lagoon 2001
    Physics Day at Lagoon 2002 The thirteenth annual Utah State University Physics Day at Lagoon was held on May 17. This year the Inland Northwest Research Alliance (INRA) joined organizers from Idaho National Engineering and Energy Lab (INEEL) and the USU Physics Department in coordinating and running the event. There were approximately 4569 students and 200 teachers from 90 schools in four states [Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Wyoming] who attended. A newly revamped web site [ http://physics.usu.edu/ ] included on-line registration and substantially enhanced information and curriculum materials for teachers. Event High Schools Middle Schools/ Junior High Schools Physics Bowl 26 Teams, 78 Students --- G-forces Contest 11 teams, 34 Students 79 teams, 288 Students Demonstration Design Contest 21 Entries, 50 Students 17 Entries, 45 Students Ride Design Contest 27 Entries, 70 Students 24 Entries, 60 Students Logo Design Contest 79 Entries, 80 Students 110 Entries, 120 Students Student Workbooks 9 Schools, 67 Students 13 Schools, 377 Students Total Contest Participation 379 (~16%) Participants 890 (~36%) Participants Totals Registered 45 Schools 45 Schools 87 Teachers 113 Teachers ~1642 Students ~2927 Students About sixty-five faculty, staff, and students from the USU Physics Department, about a twenty INEEL staff, and about twenty-five additional helpers other sponsoring agencies were on hand to assist with registration, organization and contest judging. There were an estimated $39,000 in prizes awarded this year. Sponsors included Boeing, Hansen Planetarium, Lagoon, Dupont Holographics, Thiokol, US Navy, USU College of Science, USU Office of Recruitment and Enrollments Services, Rocky Mountain NASA Space Grant Consortium, Idaho NASA Space Grant Consortium, and Inland Northwest Research Alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Garfield County, Utah Request for Statements of Qualifications for Airport Engineering Services for the Bryce Canyon Airport
    GARFIELD COUNTY, UTAH REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS FOR AIRPORT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE BRYCE CANYON AIRPORT I. INTRODUCTION Garfield County, Utah, as sponsor of a public use airport facility, is soliciting for sealed Statements of Qualifications for the selection of a principal airport consultant to provide Engineering Services for the Bryce Canyon Airport. Submittals will be accepted until 3:00 p.m. (local time) on Friday, November 20, 2020 in the office of: Camille Moore 55 South Main Street, PO Box 77 Panguitch, Utah 84759 435-676-1100 The Sponsor plans to award a five- year contract for airport engineering services subject to review on an annual basis for any and all engineering projects subject to federal assistance under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, or other sources of funding. The contract will be for the basic airport engineering consulting services as defined herein. Garfield County reserves the right to inquire into the prospective proposer’s ability to provide professional services, as defined below. The County also reserves the right to amend the Schedule of Projects and contract of Scope of Work at the sole discretion of Garfield County, Utah, on behalf of the Bryce Canyon Airport. Our selection process is intended to be in compliance with the FAA Advisory Circular AC-150/5100-14E “Architectural Engineering and Planning Consultant Services for Airport Grant Projects.” RFQ AIRPORT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES | 1 II. BACKGROUND Bryce Canyon Airport is a general aviation airport located approximately one and one-half miles from Bryce, Utah. The Sponsor is seeking to implement improvements to accommodate existing and future aviation demands.
    [Show full text]
  • February 28, 2019 Notices to Airmen
    U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICES TO AIRMEN Domestic/International February 28, 2019 Next Issue March 28, 2019 Notices to Airmen included in this publication are NOT given during pilot briefings unless specifically requested by the pilot. An electronic version of this publication is on the internet at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/notices Air Traffic Products and Publications Team JANUARY − 2019 FEBRUARY − 2019 MARCH − 2019 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2ËËË3 4 5 1 2 1 2 ËËË 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ËËË ËË ËËË ËË ËËË ËËË 31 APRIL − 2019 MAY − 2019 JUNE − 2019 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 ÊÊÊÊÊ ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11ÊÊÊ2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ÊÊÊÊÊ ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18ÊÊÊ9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ËË ËËË 21 22 23 24ËËË25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ËËË ËË ËËË 28 29 30 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ËËË 30 JULY − 2019 AUGUST − 2019 SEPTEMBER − 2019 SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ËËË 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ËËË 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ËËË ËË ËËË ËËË ËË
    [Show full text]
  • Potential for Debris Flow and Debris Flood Along the Wasatch Front Between Salt Lake City and Willard, Utah, and Measures for Their Mitigation
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Potential for debris flow and debris flood along the Wasatch Front between Salt Lake City and Willard, Utah, and measures for their mitigation by Gerald F. Wieczorek, Stephen Ellen, Elliott W. Lips, and Susan H. Cannon U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park, California and Dan N. Short Los Angeles County Flood Control District Los Angeles, California with assistance from personnel of the U.S. Forest Service Open-File Report 83-635 1983 This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature, Contents Introduction Purpose, scope, and level of confidence Historical setting Conditions and events of this spring The processes of debris flow and debris flood Potential for debris flow and debris flood Method used for evaluation Short-term potential Ground-water levels Partly-detached landslides Evaluation of travel distance Contributions from channels Contributions from landslides Recurrent long-term potential Methods recommended for more accurate evaluation Mitigation measures for debris flows and debris floods Approach Existing measures Methods used for evaluation Hydrologic data available Debris production anticipated Slopes of deposition General mitigation methods Debris basins Transport of debris along channels Recommendations for further studies Canyon-by-canyon evaluation of relative potential for debris flows and debris floods to reach canyon mouths, and mitigation measures Acknowledgments and responsibility References cited Illustrations Plate 1 - Map showing relative potential for both debris flows and debris floods to reach canyon mouths; scale 1:100,000, 2 sheets Figure 1 - Map showing variation in level of confidence in evaluation of potential for debris flows and debris floods; scale 1:500,000.
    [Show full text]
  • RECORD of DECISION 4Oii87 KENNECOTT SOUTH ZONE SITE
    540604 SDMS Document ID RECORD OF DECISION 4oii87 KENNECOTT SOUTH ZONE SITE Operable Units 1, 4, 5, 10, portions of 11, and 17 Bingham Creek and Bingham Canyon Area November, 1998 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 999 18th Street, Suite 500 Denver, Colorado 80202 D L THE DECLARATION A. SITE NAME AND LOCATION: This decision document covers all or portions of six (6) operable units which are part of the Kennecott South Zone Site proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List. Included are Bingham Creek (Operable Unit 1), Large Bingham Reservoir (Operable Unit 4), Anaconda/ARCO/Copperton Tailings (Operable Unit 5), Copperton Soils (Operable Unit 10), portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities (Operable Unit 11), and Bastian Sink (Operable Unit 17). The sites are located in unincorporated Salt Lake County, Utah, the City of West Jordan, and the City of South Jordan, Utah. B. STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE This decision document presents the selected remedial action (no action) for the Bingham Creek, Large Bingham Reservoir, Anaconda/ARCO/Copperton Tailings, Copperton Soils, portions of Bingham Canyon Historic Facilities and Bastian Sink Operable Units of the Kennecott South Zone located in Salt Lake County, which was chosen in accordance with CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the administrative record for this site. The State of Utah concurs with the selected remedy. C. DESCRIPTION OF THE RATIONALE FOR NO ACTION EPA has determined that no further action is required at these operable units.
    [Show full text]
  • O. A. Russell Color Transparency Collection AR.2008.002
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8sb4bkc No online items Guide to the O. A. Russell Color Transparency Collection AR.2008.002 Chris S. Ervin Mojave Desert Heritage and Cultural Association First Edition Mojave Desert Archives 2017-04-02 37918 Lanfair Road # G15 Essex, California 92332-9786 [email protected] URL: http://mojavedesertarchives.blogspot.com/ Guide to the O. A. Russell Color AR.2008.002 1 Transparency Collection AR.2008.002 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Mojave Desert Archives Title: O. A. Russell Color Transparency Collection creator: Russell, O. A. (Orville Alburtus), 1906-1998 creator: Russell, Esther Vanetta (Penrose), 1913-2003 Identifier/Call Number: AR.2008.002 Physical Description: 6.2 Linear Feet - 15 Deep Lid Boxes Physical Description: 7896 Photographic Transparencies Date (inclusive): 1950-1989 Abstract: The O. A. Russell Color Transparency Collection is a collection of nearly 8,000 color transparencies taken by O. A. Russell and his wife, Esther, during their annual automobile vacations away from managing their Calico Motel operation in Yermo, California. The Russells traveled throughout the western United States from the 1950s through the 1980s, visiting scenic locations in the states of Utah, Colorado, California, Arizona, and Nevada. Russell was an accomplished mid-century film photographer in an era before autofocus, built-in light meters, and digital images. Scope and Contents The O. A. Russell Color Transparency Collection is a collection of nearly 8,000 color transparencies of scenic vacation spots in the western United States. The photographic materials are comprised both 120 format and 35mm color film. This collection is arranged by state, location, and year.
    [Show full text]