DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment UT- 080 – 06 – 280 April 2007 OIL SHALE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHITE RIVER MINE, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 Phone: 435-781-4400 Fax: 435-781-4410 C O N T E N T S Page 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Purpose(s) of and Need for the Proposed Action 3 1.4 Project Overview 4 1.4.1 Prior Development – The White River Shale Project 5 1.4.2 Remaining On-Site Facilities 6 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan 7 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans 8 1.7 Identification of Issues 11 1.7.1 Air Quality 13 1.7.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 14 1.7.3 Water Resources 14 1.7.4 Soils 15 1.7.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 15 1.7.6 Flood Plains 16 1.7.7 Wetland/Riparian Zones 16 1.7.8 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Wildlife Species 16 1.7.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 17 1.7.10 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Plant Species 18 1.7.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other that USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 19 1.7.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 20 1.7.13 Recreation 20 1.7.14 Visual Resources 20 1.7.15 Cultural Resources 21 1.7.16 Paleontological Resources 21 1.7.17 Socio-economics 21 1.7.18 Special Designation Areas 22 1.8 Summary 23 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 24 2.1 Introduction 24 2.2 Alternative A – Shale Oil Recovery using the ATP System and Western Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way (Proposed Action) 26 2.2.1 The ATP System 26 2.2.2 Phase 1 27 2.2.3 Phase 2 28 2.2.3.1 Mine Reopening/Operation Activities 30 2.2.3.2 Retort Activities 31 2.2.4 Phase 3 33 -i- 2.2.4.1 Construction Activities 33 2.2.4.2 Retort Activities 34 2.2.4.3 Proposed Rights-of-Way (Western Gas Pipeline Route) 36 2.2.5 Applicant-Committed Environmental Control and Management Measures 37 2.3 Alternative B – Shale Oil Recovery using the ATP System with Alternate Eastern Natural Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way 43 2.4 Alternative C – No Action 43 2.5 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis 44 2.5.1 Oil Shale Recovery Using Other Retorts 44 2.5.2 In-Situ Method 45 2.5.3 Oil Shale Retorting using the 4-ton/hour ATP System without Mine Reopening (Implementing Phases 1 and 2 Only) 46 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 47 3.1 Introduction 47 3.2 General Setting 47 3.2.1 Climate 47 3.2.2 Geology 48 3.2.3 Surface Water Resources 48 3.2.4 Ground Water Resources 49 3.2.5 Livestock Grazing 49 3.3 Resources of Concern Brought Forward for Analysis 49 3.3.1 Air Quality 50 3.3.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 50 3.3.3 Water Resources 50 3.3.4 Soils 55 3.3.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 57 3.3.6 Floodplains 59 3.3.7 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 60 3.3.8 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Wildlife Species 61 3.3.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 61 3.3.10 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Plant Species 69 3.3.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 71 3.3.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 75 3.3.13 Recreation 78 3.3.14 Visual Resources 80 3.3.15 Cultural Resources 82 3.3.16 Paleontological Resources 86 3.3.17 Socio-economics 87 3.3.18 Special Designation Areas 88 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 92 4.1 Introduction 92 4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts 92 4.2.1 Air Quality 92 -ii- 4.2.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 108 4.2.3 Water Resources 121 4.2.4 Soils 127 4.2.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 130 4.2.6 Flood Plains 131 4.2.7 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 132 4.2.8 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Wildlife Species 135 4.2.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Endangered or Threatened Species 137 4.2.10 Threatened/Endangered (T&E) Plant Species 141 4.2.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 142 4.2.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 147 4.2.13 Recreation 149 4.2.14 Visual Resources 152 4.2.15 Cultural Resources 156 4.2.16 Paleontology Resources 160 4.2.17 Socio-economics 162 4.2.18 Special Designation Areas 163 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 166 4.3.1 Past and Present Actions 167 4.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 168 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts 169 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 176 5.1 Introduction 176 5.2 Agency Consultation 176 5.3 List of Preparers 178 5.4 Summary of Public Participation 180 6.0 REFERENCES 182 -iii- C O N T E N T S (continued) Page T A B L E S Table 3-1: Summary of Ground Water Budget for the Birds Nest Aquifer 54 Table 3-2: Soil Types and Properties in the Vicinity of the White River Mine Site and Proposed Corridors 56 Table 3-3: Federally Listed and Proposed (P), Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Candidate (C) Species and Habitat in Uintah County, Utah Updated January 2006 62 Table 3-4: BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species 63 Table 3-5: Utah Department of Wildlife Resources Managed Species 65 Table 3-6: Federally Listed and Proposed (P), Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Candidate (C) Plant Species and Habitat in Uintah County, Utah Updated January 2006 70 Table 3-7: BLM Sensitive Plant Species 74 Table 3-8: State and County Noxious Weeds and Invasive Weed Species Potentially Present in the Project Area 76 Table 3-9: VRM Classes Associated with the OSEC Project 82 Table 3-10: Previous Cultural Resource Investigation in the Vicinity of the OSEC Oil Shale Project 83 Table 3-11: Previously Recorded Sites in or near the Proposed OSEC Oil Shale Project 84 Table 3-12: Cultural Resources Located During June 2006 Class III Inventory Within or Near the Proposed Action Utility ROWs North of the White River 85 Table 3-13: Segments Eligible for National Wild and Scenic River Designation 89 Table 3-14: Location of Utility Rights-of-Way Relative to the Proposed White River ACEC 90 Table 4-1: Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards 93 Table 4-2: PSD Class I and II Emissions Increment Standards 94 Table 4-3: Phase 1 Estimated Emissions 97 Table 4-4: Phase 2 Estimated Emissions 99 Table 4-5: Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 101 Table 4-6: Phase 2 Modeling Results 101 Table 4-7: Phase 3 Estimated Emissions 105 Table 4-8: Phase 3 Greenhouse Emissions 106 Table 4-9: Phase 3 Modeling Results 107 Table 4-10: Associated Vegetative Disturbance for the OSEC Utility Rights-of-way Under the Proposed Action 144 Table 4-11: Associated Vegetative Disturbance for the OSEC Utility Rights-of-way Under Alternative B 146 Table 4-12: VRM Classes Associated with the Proposed Pipeline ROW 153 Table 4-13: VRM Classes Associated with the Alternative B Pipeline Route 156 -iv- C O N T E N T S (continued) Page Table 4-14: Cultural resources located during Class III Inventories within or near the Proposed Action utility ROWs north of the White River 157 Table 4-15: Sites previously recorded south of the White River within or near areas affected by the Proposed Action 158 Table 4-16: Cultural resources located during Class III Inventories within or near the Alternative B natural gas pipeline ROW north of the White River which would not be Affected by the Proposed Action 159 Table 4-17: NAAQS Analysis Results for Cumulative Sources 171 Table 4-18: Comparison to Class II PSD Increment Standards 171 F I G U R E S Figure 1-1: Site Location Map Figure 2-1: Site Layout for Phase 2 Development Figure 2-2: General Arrangement for Phase 2 Processing Plant Figure 2-3: Site Layout for Phase 3 Development Figure 2-4: General Arrangement for Phase 3 Processing Plant A P P E N D I C E S Appendix A: Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist Appendix B: ATP Retort Process Description Appendix C: Mine Reopening Plan Appendix D: Available Mineralogical/Geochemical Information on Green River Oil Shale – Mahogany Zone Appendix E: Water Budget Data Appendix F: Responses to Comments Received on Draft EA Appendix G: Summary of Changes to EA Appendix H: SHPO Consultation and USFWS Biological Opinion -v- ACRONYMS AND DEFINED TERMS USED ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ATP Alberta Taciuk Process BLM Bureau of Land Management BTU British Thermal Unit CEQ Presidents Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DAQ Division of Air Quality, Utah Department of Environmental Quality DOGM Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, Utah Department of Natural Resources DR Decision Record DWQ Division of Water Quality, Utah Department of Environmental Quality EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NSO No surface occupancy OHV Off-Highway Vehicles OSEC Oil Shale Exploration Company, LLC Project Area The 160-acre lease and associated road and utility rights-of-way RD&D Research, Development and Demonstration RD&D Project OSEC’s proposed research, development, and demonstration project using the ATP system at the White River Mine site RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision ROW Right-of-Way UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VFO Vernal Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management VRM Visual Resource Management WRSP White River Shale Project WSR Wild & Scenic Rivers -vi- 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (“EA”) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the potential environmental consequences of the White River Oil Shale research, development and demonstration project (referred to as the “RD&D Project”) as proposed by the Oil Shale Exploration Company, LLC (“OSEC”) for the 160-acre White River Mine lease site.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Significance of America's Oil Shale Resource
    Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource Volume II Oil Shale Resources Technology and Economics Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves Office of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves U.S. Department of Energy Washington, D.C. March 2004 Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource Volume II Oil Shale Resources, Technology and Economics March 2004 Final Report Prepared for: Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves The Office of Strategic Petroleum Reserves U.S. Department of Energy Work Performed Under: Contract DE-AC01-03FE67758 Task Order 6 Prepared by: AOC Petroleum Support Services, LLC Washington, D.C. Principal Authors: Harry R. Johnson, INTEK, Inc. Peter M. Crawford, INTEK, Inc. James W. Bunger, JWBA, Inc. Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any or their employees or contractors, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trade- mark, manufacture, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, rec- ommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Volume II – Oil Shale Resources Technology and Economics Table of Contents Foreword .........................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Review of QER Pty Ltd's Oil Shale Technology Demonstration Plant, Gladstone, Queensland January 2013
    Environmental Review of QER Pty Ltd's Oil Shale Technology Demonstration Plant, Gladstone, Queensland January 2013 Prepared by: Environmental Services & Regulation, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection © The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection) 2013 Disclaimer This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy. February 2013 Contents Executive summary ......................................................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................................2 1.1 Queensland Government 2008 decision on oil shale .........................................................................................2 1.2 What is oil shale? ................................................................................................................................................2 1.3 Where is oil shale found in Queensland? ...........................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravel Pit Solar
    July 31, 2020 Gravel Pit Solar and Public Need Compatibility of Environmental Certificate for Application Pit Solar Gravel Application for Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need SUBMITTED TO Connecticut Siting Council APPLICANT Gravel Pit Solar, LLC Gravel Pit Solar II, LLC Gravel Pit Solar III, LLC Gravel PIt Solar IV, LLC PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH Pullman & Comley, LLC Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 22,May 2020 Heritage Consultants, LLC Environmental Design & Research D.P.C Exponent Engineering and Scientific Consulting APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED Gravel Pit Solar 120 MW Solar Photovoltaic Energy Generation Project in East Windsor, Connecticut PREPARED FOR Gravel Pit Solar, LLC Gravel Pit Solar II, LLC Gravel Pit Solar III, LLC Gravel Pit Solar IV, LLC 1166 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor New York, NY 10036 PREPARED BY 100 Great Meadow Road Suite 200 Wethersfield, CT 06109 JULY 31, 2020 i APPLICATION OF GRAVEL PIT SOLAR APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A 120 MW-AC SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PROJECT NEAR APOTHECARIES HALL ROAD, PLANTATION ROAD, WAPPING ROAD, AND WINDSORVILLE ROAD IN EAST WINDSOR, CONNECTICUT JULY 31, 2020 Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 2 Applicant .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment UT- 080 – 06 – 280 October OIL SHALE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHITE RIVER MINE, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 Phone: 435-781-4400 Fax: 435-781-4410 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, UT 84078 (435) 781-4400 Fax: (435) 781-4410 IN REPLY REFER TO: UT-080-06-280 September 18, 2006 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Oil Shale Research, Development And Demonstration Project at the location of the former White River Shale Oil Company Mine in Uintah County, Utah. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) directing the preparation of the document. The EA describes the three phases of work that would occur to test the ATP retort process, and its ability to extract oil from mined oil shale. The project is located approximately 30 miles south of Vernal, Utah, within Township 10 South, Range 24 East of Uintah County, Utah. The Proposed Action calls for 3 different phases of work. The first phase would consist mainly of hauling stockpiles of oil shale to a retorting demonstration plant in Canada. The second phase would consist of moving a demonstration retort processing plant to the former White River Mine area, processing stockpiles of oil shale that are on the surface, and eventually re-opening the White River Mine, and the commencement of mining of oil shale.
    [Show full text]
  • Oil Shale Provisions of Epact Hearing
    S. HRG. 109–602 OIL SHALE PROVISIONS OF EPACT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OIL SHALE PROVISIONS OF THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 GRAND JUNCTION, CO, JUNE 1, 2006 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 30–202 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:51 Oct 20, 2006 Jkt 109602 PO 30202 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 P:\DOCS\30202.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JIM BUNNING, Kentucky BRUCE M. EVANS, Staff Director JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel BOB SIMON, Democratic Staff Director SAM FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel DICK BOUTS, Professional Staff Member PATTY BENEKE, Democratic Senior Counsel (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:51 Oct 20, 2006 Jkt 109602 PO 30202 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 P:\DOCS\30202.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS Page Baardson, John, CEO, Baard Energy, LLC, Vancouver, WA ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • A Boating Guide to the White River
    CONTENTS Dedication -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Hazards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Camping considerations ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Principles of low impact river camping ----------------------------------------------- 7 Natural features -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Wildlife and vegetation ---------------------------------------------------------------- 13 Human settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 Resource exploitation along the White River --------------------------------------- 17 Shuttle route details -------------------------------------------------------------------- 19 Alternative shuttle routes -------------------------------------------------------------- 24 River trip resources --------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 Acknowledgements and using the river map --------------------------------------- 27 River guide sponsors ------------------------------------------------------------------- 28 GPS mileage coordinates -------------------------------------------------------------- 29 River map (navigate from back cover) ----------------------------------------------- 48 Dedication Two friends have frequently come to mind as I’ve been assembling this guide. Mike
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Sand and Gravel Mining Within the Presumpscot River Watershed, Maine, Using Remote Sensing and Other Digital Data in a G.I.S
    MAPPING SAND AND GRAVEL MINING WITHIN THE PRESUMPSCOT RIVER WATERSHED, MAINE, USING REMOTE SENSING AND OTHER DIGITAL DATA IN A G.I.S. ENVIRONMENT Chris Jones, Justin Rich, Irwin D. Novak Department of Geosciences University of Southern Maine Gorham, Maine August, 2006 ABSTRACT The growth of gravel mining sites from 1998 to 2001 within the Presumpscot River watershed of southern Maine has been documented using ArcGIS software, Ortho- rectified Digital Images (ODIs) and digital surface water, road, watershed, town boundary and tax map data. Maine Department of Environmental Protection licensed site locations of 5 acres or more were added as a geo-referenced layer to aid in tracing and interpreting gravel pit boundaries. The growth of the pits was calculated by hand digitizing the outlines of areas in which the surface soils have been disturbed in order to expose extractable materials as shown on 1998 ODIs. These areas were compared with the pit outlines shown on the 2001 ODIs and satellite images (2004). The total area of all licensed and non-licensed pits within the watershed was 461.49 acres in 1998 and grew to 653.24 acres in 2004, a 47% increase. There was an increase of 49 acres, from 117.49 acres to 161.29 acres for the 34 licensed sites from 1998 to 2004 a 37% increase. The average growth was 3.8 acres per pit. More detailed analysis in the Town of Gorham, Maine, reveals that 18% of the watershed falls within Gorham and that there are 21 licensed mines. This is the second largest area of coverage after Windham, Maine, which has 22% of the watershed within its boundaries, but only 13 pits.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravel Roads Construction and Maintenance Guide Table of Contents Subject Page
    Errata ­ Replaces page 137 Reconstruction Using a Detour When the reconstruction and resulting berm are significant, the work space takes all or most of the road surface, leaving no room for traffic to negotiate past the work activities. An agency may need to reconstruct the unpaved roadway by correcting the drainage and/or adding surface materials. With this type of work, additional equipment may be used and a large amount of material may create a large berm (12 inches or more across). This will present significant hazards for the traveling public. To improve safety for mo­ torists and workers, a detour may be the best TTC. Not all road users will be familiar with the local road system and some may be confused by the road closure, so signing should be used to assist users negotiating the detour. Reconstruction work space. (Source: Greg Vavra, SDLTAP). Notes: 1. Not all local agencies use route makers for their system. MUTCD Section 6F.59 states “A Street Name sign should be placed above, or the street name should be incorporated into, a DETOUR (M4­9) sign to indicate the name of the street being detoured.” 2. With an increase in traffic at the intersections where the detour begins and ends, a review of the usage of the STOP and YIELD signs should be completed. 3. Flashing warning lights and/or flags may be used to call attention to advance warning signs. 4. Flashing warning lights may be used on the Type 3 Barricades, which should be installed at the point where the road is closed.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravel Mining Bibliography
    SEDIMENT REMOVAL BIBLIOGRAPHY Compiled by Janine Castro, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, March 1, 2006 Alexander, G.R. and E.A. Hansen. 1983. Sand sediment in a Michigan trout stream, Part II. Effects of reducing bedload on a trout population. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 3:365-372. American Fisheries Society. 2002. Position paper on instream sand and gravel mining activities in North Carolina, February 6, 2002. North Carolina Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. American River Management Society. 1996. ARMS News. Summer 1996, Vol 9, No. 2. Annandale and Gilpin. 1992. Engineering risk analysis of sand and gravel operations. In: Van Zyl, Dirk, Koval, Marshall, and Li (Eds.), Risk Assessment/Management Issues in the Environmental Planning of Mines. Andrews, J. and D. Kinsman. 1990. Gravel pit restoration for wildlife: a practical manual. Sandy, Bedfordshire, Royal Society for Protection of Birds. Anonymous. 1985. Attacks on the Otaki – gravel or grants? Soil and Water Magazine, National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, Wellington, New Zealand, 21(2):2-6. Anonymous. 1986. Rocks from the rivers – a report on gravel extraction in NZ’s lower North Island. Soil and Water Magazine, National Water and Soil Conservation Authority, Wellington, New Zealand, 22(4):2-14. Anonymous. 2000. A review of options for improving the regulation of aggregate, a diminishing pulic resource. Internal Government of British Columbia Document. 7 pp. & appendices. Arnold, L.R., W.H. Langer, and S.S. Paschke. 2003. Analytic and numerical simulation of the steady-state hydrologic effects of mining aggregate in hypothetical sand-and-gravel and fractured crystalline-rock aquifers.
    [Show full text]