Comment on the Draft EIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed China Mountain Wind Project and Jarbidge Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment analyzes the effects of authorizing the right-of-way (ROW) application submitted by China Mountain Wind, LLC and NV Energy to construct and operate the China Mountain Wind Project.
In the Draft EIS, 9 alternatives are analyzed in detail, including the No Action Alternative (A), under which the BLM would deny the ROW application and not allow construction or operation of a wind energy facility.
All of the alternatives except A and E would require amendments to the 1987 Jarbidge RMP.
The BLM relies on public comment to help ensure that its analysis of proposed projects and actions is comprehensive and exhaustive. Comments on the Draft EIS for the Proposed China Mountain Wind Project help the BLM arrive at a decision that meets the responsibilities of its multiple use mandate, both now and in the future.
The comment period for this Draft EIS closed on July 6, 2011.
Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt),
rich text format (.rtf), Word (.doc), or portable document format (.pdf) to id_chinamtn_eis@blm.gov
or through the online comment form. Please include "China Mountain Wind Project" in the
subject line of your email.
Emails submitted to email addresses other than id_chinamtn_eis@blm.gov, in other formats than
those listed above, or which contain viruses will be rejected.
All comments will be reviewed. However, only substantive comments will be used in preparing the Final EIS.
To be most helpful, comments should be as specific as possible, mentioning particular pages, sections and/or chapters. A substantive comment:
• provides new information about the Proposed
Action, an alternative or the analysis;
• identifies a different way to meet the need;
• points out a specific flaw in the analysis;
• suggests alternate methodologies and
reason(s) why they should be used;
• makes factual corrections, or
• identifies a different source of credible research which, if used in the analysis, could result in different effects.
Because the BLM has not identified a preferred project alternative at this time, the BLM encourages comments on the full suite of alternatives. Comments will be most valuable if they also address the proposed RMP amendments associated with each of the project alternatives.